On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 13:24 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:58:10AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > In the case of firefox, we're not distributing code identical to something > > that's been made available upstream under the name "firefox", we are > > patching the code with patches that have not been approved by upstream. If > > we were distributing a package that directly corresponded to upstream code > > (even to an arbitrary CVS tag/revision), I would argue that we wouldn't > > *need* a trademark license from MoFo to distribute it under that name. > > We currently patch the buildsystem, some helper modules, to support > more than one installed version, and the default config.
Is any of that worth contributing back upstream? Ian. -- Ian Campbell "Never make any mistaeks." (Anonymous, in a mail discussion about to a kernel bug report.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
