On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 07:57 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> But of course the underlying true issue is that Mozilla is refusing to
> guarantee backwards compatibility for the interfaces pretty much all
> existing apps used and in several cases still use, instead trying to force
> everyone to port t
I wrote:
> Debian builds xulrunner-1.9.2.3 against the system libffi-3.0.9 and it
> just works. They even claim a minimum version of only >= 3.0.5 for the
> dependency.
Actually they even claim only >= 3.0.4.
See for yourself:
http://packages.debian.org/experimental/xulrunner-1.9.2
Kevin
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> This option doesn't exist because it's impossible to use right now.
> Just adding a --with-libffi doesn't actually make it useful since the
> minimum required version of libffi hasn't been released yet, and libffi
> releases don't come out that frequently. Note that a l
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> You really don't see the value in having the engineers that own the code
> give technical review?
I don't think this should be a requirement for each and every patch to ANY
Fedora package.
It is generally not necessary and delays fixing bugs a lot.
> Anyway, it's unf
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 04/27/2010 02:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> (In addition, Thunderbird bundles xulrunner, but there's no fix available
>> for that issue at this time.)
>
> I'm not sure why I'm bothering responding if you're not going to even
> read responses, such as:
> http://lists
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 11:34 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Well, c.f. freedom 3 on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
> You told us, you can't modify the sources and ship modified binaries
> => thunderbird and firefox are non-free, because of the trademarks
> Mozilla apply.
You're righ
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 11:24 -0700, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 04/27/2010 02:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > (In addition, Thunderbird bundles xulrunner, but there's no fix available
> > for that issue at this time.)
>
> I'm not sure why I'm bothering responding if you're not going to even
> re
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 10:58 -0700, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> I really think that as a project, we'd be doing a lot better if we
> mandated upstream review before applying patches to any package if you
> aren't an upstream maintainer of the code. As it is now, it's somewhat
> scary to think ho
On 04/29/2010 12:29 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Christopher Aillon (cail...@redhat.com) said:
>> This option doesn't exist because it's impossible to use right now.
>> Just adding a --with-libffi doesn't actually make it useful since the
>> minimum required version of libffi hasn't been released y
Christopher Aillon (cail...@redhat.com) said:
> This option doesn't exist because it's impossible to use right now.
> Just adding a --with-libffi doesn't actually make it useful since the
> minimum required version of libffi hasn't been released yet, and libffi
> releases don't come out that fr
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Anyway, it's unfortunate that this really isn't done more often. I
> really think that as a project, we'd be doing a lot better if we
> mandated upstream review before applying patches to any package if you
> aren't an upstream maintain
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> But, I'll re-iterate what Jan told you earlier in the thread that we've
> been working on it with upstream and have been for a while, and it's a
> HUGE undertaking. We've already made significant progress and have
> gotten quite a bit
On 04/27/2010 02:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> (In addition, Thunderbird bundles xulrunner, but there's no fix available
> for that issue at this time.)
I'm not sure why I'm bothering responding if you're not going to even
read responses, such as:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/201
On 04/27/2010 02:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> * libffi is bundled because there's no option to use the system version,
This option doesn't exist because it's impossible to use right now.
Just adding a --with-libffi doesn't actually make it useful since the
minimum required version of libffi hasn
On 04/27/2010 02:55 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I think that, sure, we should try to get patches upstreamed, but I don't see
> why we'd need to wait for their approval before applying them, other than
> due to the aforementioned trademark bureaucracy.
You really don't see the value in having the eng
mike cloaked wrote:
> One more point which may not be directly on thread but which IS
> important - many people use their browser for online banking and a
> good number of banks will not allow login from any browser not on
> their "approved" list. At present if you are running Firefox then
> most
On 04/27/2010 12:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 16:48 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> As a propopent of "Free SW", my interest is to fight those who are
>> applying trademarks to undermine the principles of "free SW".
>
> This is not what Mozilla is doing. They are applying
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 02:22:48PM +0200, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> If the banks do adhere to standards there is no use for checking user-agent.
It'd be a lot easier if we shipped software for an ideal world rather
than the real one, yes.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mail
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 07:39:37AM +0100, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Mail Lists wrote:
> > On 04/27/2010 05:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> >
> > The OP had an issue w. thunderbird - which many find to be a pretty
> > decent mail client.
> >
> > This thread has morph
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 04:59:55PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 17:55:39 -0400,
> Matt McCutchen wrote:
> >
> > Epiphany is a non-starter. In the default configuration, it doesn't
> > validate SSL certificates at all (bug 569577). An unbranded Mozilla
> > browser wo
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Mail Lists wrote:
> On 04/27/2010 05:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>
> The OP had an issue w. thunderbird - which many find to be a pretty
> decent mail client.
>
> This thread has morphed ...
>
> As for Firefox, I'd actually prefer to put fedora effort behind
>
I wrote:
> Yes, definitely. We should ask Debian about using the ice* names they're
> using, and also share patches with them.
An alternative would be using GNU IceCat:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
but they don't have a rebranded Thunderbird.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
On Sun 25 April 2010 2:55:58 pm Kevin Kofler wrote:
> They still suck in the system integration
> domain in many ways, e.g. openSUSE's KDE integration patches have yet to
> be merged, and of course our maintainers refuse to merge openSUSE's
> patches due to the usual trademark concerns
In their
On 04/27/2010 05:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The OP had an issue w. thunderbird - which many find to be a pretty
decent mail client.
This thread has morphed ...
As for Firefox, I'd actually prefer to put fedora effort behind
chromium - google-chrome is an order of magnitude better than fir
Chris Tyler wrote:
> APNG was created to fill a void -- there was a need for a modern
> animated format with two qualities: it needed to be lightweight and
> backward-compatible (degrade gracefully). After nearly a year of
> discussion and consultation, the PNG group decided not to back it;
Becaus
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:38 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > You can't modify Fedora under F/OSS principles and still call it Fedora,
> > just like you can't modify Firefox under F/OSS principles and still call
> > it Firefox. Both of us do this to protect the good name of th
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:55 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> You mean "compliance" with Mozilla's own "standards" such as APNG which
> require a bundled hacked version of a system library to support?
Kevin, you keep bringing up APNG, so let me address that one. I know the
story because the Mozilla im
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> The way Firefox does it, is more to help companies sell certificates than
> to actually help security.
+1
All it does is it leads people to use completely unencrypted HTTP instead,
to avoid the "big scary warnings". How does that provide any added security?
I like the w
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 00:35 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > Epiphany is a non-starter. In the default configuration, it doesn't
> > validate SSL certificates at all (bug 569577). An unbranded Mozilla
> > browser would be a much better choice.
>
> That's a wrong bug ID. RH/
Matt McCutchen wrote:
> Epiphany is a non-starter. In the default configuration, it doesn't
> validate SSL certificates at all (bug 569577). An unbranded Mozilla
> browser would be a much better choice.
That's a wrong bug ID. RH/Fedora bug 569577 is a Nautilus crash. GNOME bug
569577 is a Bansh
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 16:59 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 17:55:39 -0400,
> Matt McCutchen wrote:
> >
> > Epiphany is a non-starter. In the default configuration, it doesn't
> > validate SSL certificates at all (bug 569577). An unbranded Mozilla
> > browser would be
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Mozilla has to bundle to ship on Windows, Mac, even their builds for
> Linux where they don't control what versions of libraries are present on
> the system, if they are installed at all (hooray choice!). That has
> absolutely no bearing at all on Fedora however because
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 17:55:39 -0400,
Matt McCutchen wrote:
>
> Epiphany is a non-starter. In the default configuration, it doesn't
> validate SSL certificates at all (bug 569577). An unbranded Mozilla
> browser would be a much better choice.
The way Firefox does it, is more to help compan
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Also, in the past, certain distributors have altered or broken standards
> compliance in their clients with patches, and in continuing to do so,
> they no longer ship with Mozilla trademarks. They have effectively
> created a different browser and mail client that behav
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:35 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> In fact, I don't see Firefox as being the "absolute requirement" it's
> painted to be at all, we could even consider just not shipping it at all and
> picking a different default browser for the GNOME spin, e.g. Epiphany which
> is the off
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Rebranding can be a difficult task, but this task also can be easily
> measured in man-hours, man-days or man-months, and this would be a
> ultimate solution, while chatting with lawers can consume much more
> time w/o success (nothing personal here).
And the rebranding wor
Adam Williamson wrote:
> You can't modify Fedora under F/OSS principles and still call it Fedora,
> just like you can't modify Firefox under F/OSS principles and still call
> it Firefox. Both of us do this to protect the good name of the project.
> We'd be in an extremely glass house-y situation if
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I think a rather large part of the problem here is that all the above
> 'special exception' pleading applies far more to Firefox than it does to
> Thunderbird. Firefox is a special exception; it's a phenomenon, the
> single most successful F/OSS app, an app with its own ver
On 04/25/2010 10:00 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Those packages are also sometimes not compliant with Fedora policies such
>> as usage of system libraries because any patches to use a system library
>> need trademark approval.
>
> Another one: Thunderbird STILL bundles its own Gecko instea
On 04/27/2010 12:45 AM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 04/23/2010 12:03 AM, Martin Stransky wrote:
> We do have an agreement with Mozilla and as such, we are permitted to
> use the Firefox and Thunderbird trademarks.
You certainly mean: RH has an agreement with Mozilla.
That's of no importance in
On 04/27/2010 12:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 10:36 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> IMO, *no* - it's time to spread the world about Mozilla's trademark
>> policy violating the prinicples of Free SW and Fedora's Mozilla being
>> hostage of it.
>
> You mean, much like the F
On 04/26/2010 03:52 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> And they should do things the right way as well. If they are bundling
> libraries, they should stop doing that.
Mozilla has to bundle to ship on Windows, Mac, even their builds for
Linux where they don't control what versions of libraries are prese
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 15:45:53 -0700,
Christopher Aillon wrote:
>
> We do have an agreement with Mozilla and as such, we are permitted to
> use the Firefox and Thunderbird trademarks. But even if we did not or
> it were decided those marks were not important to us, I strongly feel
> that
On 04/23/2010 12:03 AM, Martin Stransky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because
> of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla
> package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'.
To clarify a little further...
The main purp
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 16:48 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> As a propopent of "Free SW", my interest is to fight those who are
> applying trademarks to undermine the principles of "free SW".
This is not what Mozilla is doing. They are applying trademarks to
protect the names Mozilla, Firefox and
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 10:36 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> IMO, *no* - it's time to spread the world about Mozilla's trademark
> policy violating the prinicples of Free SW and Fedora's Mozilla being
> hostage of it.
You mean, much like the Fedora and Red Hat trademark policies, which say
almost
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 14:48 -0400, Chris Tyler wrote:
> * The trademark rules are there for a reason. Browser and e-mail clients
> are some of the most common attack points on desktop systems, and
> Mozilla needs to ensure that they don't get a black eye for some
> vulnerability introduced by a di
On 4/25/2010 8:37 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
>
>> I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit
>> to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should
>> be breaking our rules to help them
On 04/26/2010 03:56 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 04/26/2010 09:35 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> * The Fedora Mozilla packages can't be bug-fixed/patched.
>> Cause: The package is non-free.
>>
>> * The Fedora Mozilla package can't be made compliant to the FPG.
>> Cause the packages are n
On 04/26/2010 07:44 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>
> It's not up to maintainer to decide whether to provide non-free
> package in Fedora. And I don't see why we need to ask FESCo for
> resolution of this (clearly visible for almost everyone) violation of
> our guidelines.
>
Mozilla has some restri
On 04/26/2010 07:26 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> As to why we have not simply patched at will, and discarded the
> trademarks, well, I think that is ultimately up to FESCo and the
> Maintainer(s) to decide how we wish to operate in that manner.
>
Alright. So I have filed this issue with FE
2010/4/26 Tom "spot" Callaway :
> The Fedora Mozilla packages can be bug-fixed/patched. If Mozilla doesn't
> accept the patches upstream first, we would no longer have permission to
> use their trademarks, and would need to remove them when we did so.
You just said something like "yes we can, but
On 04/26/2010 09:35 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> * The Fedora Mozilla packages can't be bug-fixed/patched.
> Cause: The package is non-free.
>
> * The Fedora Mozilla package can't be made compliant to the FPG.
> Cause the packages are non-free.
Neither of these are true.
The Fedora Mozilla packag
On 04/26/2010 07:05 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 04/26/2010 10:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 04/26/2010 02:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> Well, may-be FESCO should decide upon on whether the FSF's
>>> "freedom 3" [1] is a inclusion/exclusion criterion for packages in
>>> Fedora.
>>>
>>> Ra
On 04/26/2010 10:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 04/26/2010 02:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Well, may-be FESCO should decide upon on whether the FSF's
>> "freedom 3" [1] is a inclusion/exclusion criterion for packages in Fedora.
>>
>> Ralf
>>
>> [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
On 04/26/2010 02:39 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
>
> May I ask whether anyone has the same crash occurring with Thunderbird
> 3.1b2? I have been running the nightlies for that version for months
> without any problem - is the crash only occurring with version 3.0.x?
> Rather than planning on breaking
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 04/26/2010 02:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Well, may-be FESCO should decide upon on whether the FSF's
>> "freedom 3" [1] is a inclusion/exclusion criterion for packages in Fedora.
>>
>> Ralf
>>
>> [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free
On 04/26/2010 02:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Well, may-be FESCO should decide upon on whether the FSF's
> "freedom 3" [1] is a inclusion/exclusion criterion for packages in Fedora.
>
> Ralf
>
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
It is (except for firmware) but before you wave i
On 04/25/2010 11:48 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> Isn't this a FESCO issue? Maybe it is time to reopen this issue?
>
> Knowing my fellow FESCo members, I don't think I'll get a majority to agree
> with me. :-(
Well, may-be FESCO should decide upon on whether the FSF's
"freedo
On 04/25/2010 07:37 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
>> I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit
>> to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should
>> be breaking our rules to help them.
>
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Mail Lists wrote:
> On 04/25/2010 07:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> The upstream version has that bug too, they just don't care about it enough
>> to release a fixed version in a timely manner.
>
>
> OH - FYI, I am running upstream and I don't have that problem ...
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Quentin Armitage
wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 12:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 13:37:11 -0400,
>> Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> >
>> > > I don't see how using Mozilla tra
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 12:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 13:37:11 -0400,
> Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit
> > > to Fedora. It seems to
On 04/25/2010 07:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The upstream version has that bug too, they just don't care about it enough
> to release a fixed version in a timely manner.
OH - FYI, I am running upstream and I don't have that problem ... can
disconnect the network all i want .. no crash.
--
Mail Lists wrote:
> Can someone explain why the fedora version has a bug which upstream
> version does not ? Or am I missing something ?
The upstream version has that bug too, they just don't care about it enough
to release a fixed version in a timely manner.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mai
Chris Tyler wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 00:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> What about patches to use system libraries?
>
> I'm sure they'd love to receive 'em!
http://patch-tracker.debian.org/patch/series/view/xulrunner/1.9.2.3-2/debian-hacks/0011-Disable-APNG-support-when-system-libpng-do
On 04/25/2010 06:21 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Can someone explain why the fedora version has a bug which upstream
version does not ? Or am I missing something ?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Chris Tyler wrote:
> Wait, let's not get silly here.
>
> Fedora has a great relationship with Mozilla. They're an amazing project
> filled with people that Get It, and we can work out issues with them in
> a cooperative way.
I'm fed up of the "they're great, so let's do all they want" rhetoric. N
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> They also care very little about the needs of distros and it took years for
> some of the system libs to get used rather than bundled, for things like
> system icons getting adopted etc. They still suck in the system integration
> domain in m
Mail Lists wrote:
> If it was fedora branded then I'd guess a goodly chunk would just go
> and install the upstream anyway coz they would not know nor trust the
> browser called 'Fedora-Browser' or whatever.
>
> Those wishing to use firefox will use firefox - those wishing to use
> google-chro
Tom Lane wrote:
> Wouldn't it be sensible to approach the Mozilla folk about getting them
> to relax their requirements so that sane packaging is possible? ISTM
> that this must be a problem for other distros too.
We have tried, Debian has tried, other distros have tried, Mozilla just said
"no".
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> We could even try coordinating names with Debian to reduce confusion.
Yes, definitely. We should ask Debian about using the ice* names they're
using, and also share patches with them.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admi
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Isn't this a FESCO issue? Maybe it is time to reopen this issue?
Knowing my fellow FESCo members, I don't think I'll get a majority to agree
with me. :-(
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/li
On 04/25/2010 01:37 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
> I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visibility and
> importance of the Firefox and Fedora brands... nobody knows what Fedora
> is, while most computer users will have at least heard about Firefox.
>
>
Agreed a fortiori - in fact
On 04/26/2010 01:41 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 00:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> On 04/26/2010 12:18 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
>>
>>> Let's not be brash. If we want to ship TB with one small patch, it's a
>>> simple matter of asking.
>>>
>> If it was so simple,
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 00:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 04/26/2010 12:18 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
> >
> > Let's not be brash. If we want to ship TB with one small patch, it's a
> > simple matter of asking.
>
> If it was so simple, why haven't we done it already?
We did, with Firefox and Pan
On 04/26/2010 12:18 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
>
> Let's not be brash. If we want to ship TB with one small patch, it's a
> simple matter of asking.
>
If it was so simple, why haven't we done it already? What about patches
to use system libraries?
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapr
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 12:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 13:37:11 -0400,
> Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit
> > > to Fedora. It seems to
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 13:37:11 -0400,
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> > I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit
> > to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should
> > be breaking our
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit
> to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should
> be breaking our rules to help them.
I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visib
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 18:33:27 +0200,
Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
> Whoops, sorry for the PM Bruno and Kevin, i did just click on reply to
> all. Forgot to check for a cc.
If I didn't want PM copies, I'd set mail-followup-to to not get them.
I sometimes find it useful to get the extra copy.
Als
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Thomas Janssen
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruno Wolff III writes:
>>> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 12:03:28 -0400,
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
Wouldn't it be sensible to approach the Mozilla folk about getting them
to relax their
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III writes:
>> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 12:03:28 -0400,
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Wouldn't it be sensible to approach the Mozilla folk about getting them
>>> to relax their requirements so that sane packaging is possible? ISTM
>>> tha
Bruno Wolff III writes:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 12:03:28 -0400,
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be sensible to approach the Mozilla folk about getting them
>> to relax their requirements so that sane packaging is possible? ISTM
>> that this must be a problem for other distros too.
> I thou
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 12:03:28 -0400,
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III writes:
> > The issue is that the Mozilla trademark rules are preventing us from
> > packaging software using those trademarks in accordance with our rules.
> > I think it would be better for the trademarks to go, rather
Bruno Wolff III writes:
> The issue is that the Mozilla trademark rules are preventing us from
> packaging software using those trademarks in accordance with our rules.
> I think it would be better for the trademarks to go, rather than granting
> exceptions to the rules.
Wouldn't it be sensible t
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 17:35:13 +0200,
drago01 wrote:
>
> By shipping software using names known to users coming from other OSes?
While in general it would be confusing if everything was renamed, I think
the default web browser name is less of an issue since it is installed
by default. People
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 09:47:26 +0200,
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>> Those packages are also sometimes not compliant with Fedora policies such as
>> usage of system libraries because any patches to use a system library need
>> trademark ap
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 09:47:26 +0200,
Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Those packages are also sometimes not compliant with Fedora policies such as
> usage of system libraries because any patches to use a system library need
> trademark approval. This is also just unacceptable. See e.g. the Hunspell
I wrote:
> Those packages are also sometimes not compliant with Fedora policies such
> as usage of system libraries because any patches to use a system library
> need trademark approval. This is also just unacceptable.
PPS: And another one: xulrunner uses a bundled libffi. Another blatant
violat
I wrote:
> Those packages are also sometimes not compliant with Fedora policies such
> as usage of system libraries because any patches to use a system library
> need trademark approval.
Another one: Thunderbird STILL bundles its own Gecko instead of using the
system xulrunner, another blatant vi
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Thanks for providing evidence of how trademarks are being applied to
> void the benefits of "open source".
>
> The obvious logical consequences of what you say would be
> * either to remove the packages you are referring to from Fedora because
> they are effectively unmaint
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Well, c.f. freedom 3 on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
> You told us, you can't modify the sources and ship modified binaries
> => thunderbird and firefox are non-free, because of the trademarks
> Mozilla apply.
>
> => These packages should not be part of Fed
Martin Stransky wrote:
> No, you get it wrong. It's about cooperation, we work with upstream to
> release one valid product. See the upstream bug, the fix may be included
> in next security update.
That's too late. It should have been applied weeks ago! That crash has been
known for 7 weeks, a qu
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> ...*may be included* in next security update.
>
> Well, Ralf is right. That situation is just sick. To have a patch that
> fixes a crashing application but it can't be applied, because of
> Trademark/Branding problems. And even worse, that the app has to crash
> for *everyo
On 04/23/2010 09:24 AM, Martin Stransky wrote:
> On 04/23/2010 09:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 04/23/2010 09:03 AM, Martin Stransky wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because
>>> of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the m
On 04/23/2010 11:11 AM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> On Friday 23 of April 2010 09:03:37 Martin Stransky wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because
>> of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla
>> package and ship it as 'Firefox
On Friday 23 of April 2010 09:03:37 Martin Stransky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because
> of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla
> package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'.
just curious: is it possible to
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Martin Stransky wrote:
> On 04/23/2010 09:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 04/23/2010 09:03 AM, Martin Stransky wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because
>>> of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we wan
On 04/23/2010 01:12 PM, Martin Stransky wrote:
> On 04/23/2010 09:30 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> What is the exact definition of "really critical issues" here. A
>> frequent crash seems a critical issue to me.
>
> - 0day vulnerabilities
> - critical crashes (like app fails to start for *everyone*
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
