subject:"xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide \(F15\) bundles several system libs"

Peter Lemenkov wrote:

 2010/10/4 Martin Stransky stran...@redhat.com:
 
 FIXED UPSTREAM is a correct resolution for the bug, and it has been
 fixed by upstream and came to F13 in firefox 3.6.x.
 
 That's an absolutely great tactics to deal with bug reports! And
 that's why I call proprietary Mozilla software as unmaintainable - you
 doesn't and you can't  fix issues (in this case you did close two
 tickets but both issues are still remains unresolved).

Well, normally it's the s390 arch team's job to fix the build on s390, and 
they should have commit access to all packages, even Firefox. If that's not 
the case, talk to the infrastructure team to get the required access.

But I agree that closing it as fixed in a more recent Fedora release is 
completely unacceptable for a build fix which prevents shipping the package 
at all on that architecture. This MUST be fixed in the F12 branch.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Matej Cepl wrote:
 No need to call it “political reasons” (on the side of MoFo) ... nowhere
 in the definition of free software is written, that upstream has to
 accept your patches. It may happen upstream (any upstream) disagrees with
 your patch, you may not agree with them, but in the end it is their
 decision and if you don't agree you can either suck it up or fork. Both
 alternatives are still freely open for you (and Fedora as whole) in MoFo
 case as well (just to make this clear).

With any other upstream, we can just patch it in Fedora if upstream rejects 
the patch. Mozilla is abusing trademark law to prevent us from doing that, 
making the package effectively unmaintainable in the distribution, and 
leaving a rename as the only reasonable solution.

 If there is any political reason, then it is Fedora/RH policy to oblige
 with upstream trademark terms and to keep our Firefox/Thunderbird/
 XULRunner as close to the upstream as possible to save us work
 maintaining our patches and not go Iceweasel way.

No. It is Fedora's policy for all packages to follow Fedora guidelines, even 
where they conflict with upstream. Staying close to upstream is only one of 
the SHOULD guidelines and as such NEVER trumps MUST guidelines such as no 
bundled libs.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

Tomas Mraz wrote:
 The problem here really is that some not so important? projects are
 forced to accept all the restrictions and requirements and other more
 important? projects get a free pass from them. This is unfortunate and
 it does not improve the spirit of the package maintainers.

Yes, this is the outrageous part!

Mozilla should be held by the same guidelines as all the other packages in 
Fedora.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
 I don't see any conflict between Fedora's policy and Mozilla's policy.
 Both say that if you redistribute and change code you have to
 re-trademark.  Those policies are fair and sensible.  We can either
 patch and re-trademark Firefox or ship upstream.  One of the values of
 Fedora is stay close to upstream.  Another value is the Firefox brand.
 This is a no-brainer choice for Fedora: ship upstream Firefox.  I really
 can't believe this thread is as long as it is.

It's not a no-brainer at all, because, as you say:

 The only possible room for debate that I see is that there is, in
 Firefox, a potential conflict between our ship upstream and don't
 bundle libs values.  We have FESco to sort that out.

and because that's a MUST policy whereas staying close to upstream is a 
SHOULD. So IMHO the no-brainer is that the MUST policy has to be followed 
and that Firefox must be rebranded if that's the only way to follow it.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

drago01 wrote:

 On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
 That's not free.
 
 It is, as you are _free_ to change the name and artwork anytime you want.

But it's not free FOR US as long as we don't actually do that, because we're 
bound by the trademark policies, which is preventing us from shipping a 
package complying to our guidelines.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

Brandon Lozza wrote:
 I think an exception should be made for Chromium too.

No. Just no.

The exceptions for Firefox need to stop NOW, i.e. no new ones should be 
granted and the ones that have already been granted repealed/discontinued. 
Giving yet another package a free pass is going in the entirely wrong 
direction.

(That said, I really don't see why Firefox gets a free pass while Chromium 
doesn't.)

 Having a more secure browser would benefit the main repositories.

We already have Konqueror which is more secure than either Firefox or 
Chromium. (There have been much fewer security vulnerabilities in KHTML than 
either Gecko or WebKit. All the WebKit issues have been checked for 
reproducibility in KHTML and most weren't reproducible.)

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Adam Williamson wrote:
 I think you're unnecessarily muddying up a simple practical discussion
 (how do we go about getting these bundled libs removed) with overheated
 ideological rhetoric, and it really isn't helping anyone get anything
 done.

Bullsh*t! He's explaining very precisely and factually why it is completely 
reasonable to expect the Mozilla maintainers to unbundle the libs.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Peter Jones wrote:

 On 10/06/2010 10:08 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
 On 10/6/10, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
 I won't comment on the trademark issue (because that's just pure
 lunacy), but let me comment here they don't accept my patches, so they
 are non- free. That's just nonsense ...
 
 Yes it is, that's not the issue. They aren't letting us distribute it
 ourselves, unless its brand is removed or we don't make those changes.
 
 On the contrary, distribution is the thing they *are* allowing.

He's talking about distribution WITH THE PATCHES THEY REJECTED (something 
pretty much ANY other upstream allows, even if they often frown upon it to 
some extent). So you're missing the point.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-13 Thread Adam Williamson

On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 00:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
 Adam Williamson wrote:
  I think you're unnecessarily muddying up a simple practical discussion
  (how do we go about getting these bundled libs removed) with overheated
  ideological rhetoric, and it really isn't helping anyone get anything
  done.
 
 Bullsh*t! He's explaining very precisely and factually why it is completely 
 reasonable to expect the Mozilla maintainers to unbundle the libs.

You appear to have just arrived in your time machine. It's the year
2010, and the President is Barack Obama. Sorry, no flying cars yet.
Bummer, I know.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Adam Williamson wrote:
 Practically speaking, it would add an extra burden to the maintainers,
 who already do not have enough resources to deal with all the issues.
 Again, the reason we don't carry non-upstream patches in Firefox has
 nothing to do with the branding issue. It's because we don't have the
 resources to maintain non-upstream patches in Firefox.

Nonsense.
* Whenever somebody complains about the Firefox maintainers rejecting non-
upstream patches, they give the trademarks as the reason.
* Whenever somebody complains about the branding, they claim it doesn't 
matter because we aren't carrying non-upstream patches anyway.
That's a very circular argument. Please don't fall for it.

There are some very concrete practical reasons for shipping some non-
upstream patches, unbundling libraries is one of those.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-13 Thread Jesse Keating

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/13/2010 03:21 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
 * Whenever somebody complains about the Firefox maintainers rejecting non-
 upstream patches, they give the trademarks as the reason.

Actually what I've seen from the maintainers is that they wouldn't take
the patch if upstream wouldn't take it, regardless of trademarks.  They
feel that if it's not acceptable for upstream, it's not acceptable for
Fedora.

- -- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAky2M+YACgkQ4v2HLvE71NWgHQCgg3WNbNpPC6C9LPM/DLkQINbG
KssAoJUPqKeU54NW0AoThHgJ+ekPVQ0x
=8eGS
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
  * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not
 simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹)

Because having both Iceweasel and Firefox in the repository, in addition to 
being stupid by itself, would also mean shipping 2 different versions of 
xulrunner (because there's where most of the offending patches live).

And besides, it's not that we want Iceweasel, it's that we DO NOT WANT 
Firefox since it does not follow Fedora policies. Having both would not 
actually solve any problem.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-13 Thread Adam Williamson

On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 15:32 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1
 
 On 10/13/2010 03:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
  On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 00:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
  Adam Williamson wrote:
  I think you're unnecessarily muddying up a simple practical discussion
  (how do we go about getting these bundled libs removed) with overheated
  ideological rhetoric, and it really isn't helping anyone get anything
  done.
 
  Bullsh*t! He's explaining very precisely and factually why it is 
  completely 
  reasonable to expect the Mozilla maintainers to unbundle the libs.
  
  You appear to have just arrived in your time machine. It's the year
  2010, and the President is Barack Obama. Sorry, no flying cars yet.
  Bummer, I know.
 
 Neither of the last two replies here are examples of being excellent to
 each other.  Please either take it off list, or be more civil.

Er, really? I don't see where I offered any insult or un-excellent-ness.
I just meant it as a vaguely humorous way of wondering why Kevin was
replying to an email I sent over a week ago in a discussion which I
thought had pretty much finished already.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-13 Thread Adam Williamson

On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 00:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
   * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not
  simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹)
 
 Because having both Iceweasel and Firefox in the repository, in addition to 
 being stupid by itself, would also mean shipping 2 different versions of 
 xulrunner (because there's where most of the offending patches live).
 
 And besides, it's not that we want Iceweasel, it's that we DO NOT WANT 
 Firefox since it does not follow Fedora policies. Having both would not 
 actually solve any problem.

Proving that we can package Iceweasel and Icedove into Fedora and wind
up with workable software is a big step on that road, though. I think
making Iceweasel and Icedove packages and then floating the proposal
switch from these guideline-infringing Firefox and Thunderbird packages
to these non-guideline-infringing Iceweasel and Icedove packages that
already exist and are tested would get much more momentum than just
complaining that the Firefox and Thunderbird packages are infringing.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-13 Thread Jesse Keating

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/13/2010 03:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
 Er, really? I don't see where I offered any insult or un-excellent-ness.
 I just meant it as a vaguely humorous way of wondering why Kevin was
 replying to an email I sent over a week ago in a discussion which I
 thought had pretty much finished already.

Sarcasm, particularly snide sarcasm, doesn't always translate well
across language barriers.  Also it's rather difficult to tell tone and
intention from raw text.

- -- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAky2N1oACgkQ4v2HLvE71NUsewCePeA5zLVah4SC+a2BPA4U31f4
RTQAnicAVmxfxsXSeZY+X/QnoqHUgvC3
=plrg
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-13 Thread Gregory Maxwell

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
 On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 00:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
   * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not
  simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹)

 Because having both Iceweasel and Firefox in the repository, in addition to
 being stupid by itself, would also mean shipping 2 different versions of
 xulrunner (because there's where most of the offending patches live).

 And besides, it's not that we want Iceweasel, it's that we DO NOT WANT
 Firefox since it does not follow Fedora policies. Having both would not
 actually solve any problem.

 Proving that we can package Iceweasel and Icedove into Fedora and wind
 up with workable software is a big step on that road, though. I think
 making Iceweasel and Icedove packages and then floating the proposal
 switch from these guideline-infringing Firefox and Thunderbird packages
 to these non-guideline-infringing Iceweasel and Icedove packages that
 already exist and are tested would get much more momentum than just
 complaining that the Firefox and Thunderbird packages are infringing.

Iceweasel as it currently exists in debian currently bundles exactly
the same media libraries.

(http://packages.debian.org/source/experimental/iceweasel — notice the
lack of dependency on libvorbis,libtheora,libvpx,libogg,etc)

It's facts like these that put the lie to the ridiculous claim that
the media library bundling has much of anything to do with trademarks.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-13 Thread Al Dunsmuir

Hello Kevin,

On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 5:30:52 PM, you wrote:
 Well, normally it's the s390 arch team's job to fix the build on s390, and
 they should have commit access to all packages, even Firefox. If that's not
 the case, talk to the infrastructure team to get the required access.

 But I agree that closing it as fixed in a more recent Fedora release is
 completely unacceptable for a build fix which prevents shipping the package
 at all on that architecture. This MUST be fixed in the F12 branch.

 Kevin Kofler

Kevin,

Reality checks:
1) Do you _really_ think that there is much use of desktops (let alone
   desktop  applications such as Firefox) on zSeries?

   Most   folks  doing  it  are likely using emulation (Hercules), for
   the  usual  educational  and  developmental purposes.   These folks
   will use the native browser, not the slower emulated system one.

   Unless  you  have  a  dedicated LPAR or VM, running desktop apps is
   quite   rare  on  real  zSeries hardware. It is mostly for bragging
   rights.  Every now and then folks with z10 or later hardware (which
   finally  is  leading  edge  CPU  performance)  will experiment with
   bringing  up  a  desktop  environment  like  Gnome.  Older hardware
   requires significant patience.

   It  isn't something that one would do on a production server, where
   you  pay for CPU consumed. In reality those servers would be almost
   exclusively RHEL.

2) For  several  releases,  s390x secondary architecture was not very
   active.   That  has  changed with F14, which is causing significant
   excitement on mailing lists such as linux-...@vm.marist.edu.

   The  s390x  team decides where they invest their limited resources.
   F14  is where they made the wise decision to focus - that equine is
   not deceased, but chomping at the bit.

   F14 on zSeries is a very viable release for application porting and
   development,  whether  on  real hardware or emulation. Mostly using
   non-GUI  means.  I  would  expect  nearly all downstream production
   systems would be RHEL systems. 

3) If  there is anything that fits in the do not touch category, it
   would be a core package on a secondary architecture on a release
   no one is using that is nearing EOL.

It  might  be  best  to  find a better target to rant and rave on both
Firefox and the stable release vision. Or just let it go.

Al

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
 Iceweasel as it currently exists in debian currently bundles exactly
 the same media libraries.

CURRENTLY.

The Debian Iceweasel maintainer has attached a patch to the upstream bug 
which makes it use the system libvpx, we'd just need to apply that patch.

And besides, how Debian enforces or not their guideline to not bundle 
libraries is not really our problem. What matters is that a patch exists and 
should be applied.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-08 Thread Matej Cepl

Martin Sourada, Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:55:52 +0200:
 but unless someone announces API/ABI changes, you'll notice them only
 after someone fills a bug that your plugin does not work (yes, this is
 precisely the kind of thing that could be caught by usual dependency
 check if mozilla used properly versioned libraries...)

Any help, including help with communication with community will be 
certainly welcome.

Matěj
-- 
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mceplatceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB  25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
 
Anything essential is invisible to the eyes, the little prince
repeated, in order to remember.
It's the time you spent on your rose that makes your rose so
important.
It's the time I spent on my rose ..., the little prince
repeated, in order to remember.
People have forgotten this truth. the fox said. But you
mustn't forget it.  You become responsible forever for what
you've tamed. You're responsible for your rose...
I'm responsible for my rose..., the little prince repeated, in
order to remember.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: The Little Prince


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-07 Thread Brandon Lozza

On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
 On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

 However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at
 Freedom - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply
 do not fit into this philosophy.

 If we don't protect the Fedora trademark, anyone can produce anything
 and call it 'Fedora'. Including something which doesn't fit into our
 philosophy of freedom at all.

 It's really pretty simple: we can only define goals and values and
 blahblah for 'the Fedora project' as long as we actually retain control
 over 'the Fedora project' (that's we as in the Fedora community, not Red
 Hat, BTW) and we can only do that if we control the name 'Fedora'. If
 anyone can make anything and call it 'Fedora', how are people to know
 what comes from the Fedora project and is backed by its values, and what
 doesn't?
 --
 Adam Williamson
 Fedora QA Community Monkey
 IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
 http://www.happyassassin.net

 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


What are you guys going to do if someone does it anyway in a country
where Redhat hasn't registered the Fedora trademark, or countries
where another country already owns the Fedora trademark. Do you think
spammers are going to host in the good old US of A? Bad argument.

Strawman arguments make bad policy change decisions.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-07 Thread Brandon Lozza

I think an exception should be made for Chromium too. Having a more
secure browser would benefit the main repositories.

On 10/7/10, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
 On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
 On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

 However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at
 Freedom - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply
 do not fit into this philosophy.

 If we don't protect the Fedora trademark, anyone can produce anything
 and call it 'Fedora'. Including something which doesn't fit into our
 philosophy of freedom at all.

 It's really pretty simple: we can only define goals and values and
 blahblah for 'the Fedora project' as long as we actually retain control
 over 'the Fedora project' (that's we as in the Fedora community, not Red
 Hat, BTW) and we can only do that if we control the name 'Fedora'. If
 anyone can make anything and call it 'Fedora', how are people to know
 what comes from the Fedora project and is backed by its values, and what
 doesn't?
 --
 Adam Williamson
 Fedora QA Community Monkey
 IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
 http://www.happyassassin.net

 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


 What are you guys going to do if someone does it anyway in a country
 where Redhat hasn't registered the Fedora trademark, or countries
 where another country already owns the Fedora trademark. Do you think
 spammers are going to host in the good old US of A? Bad argument.

 Strawman arguments make bad policy change decisions.

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-07 Thread Przemek Klosowski

On 10/07/2010 08:36 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
 On 10/6/10, Adam Williamsonawill...@redhat.com  wrote:

 If we don't protect the Fedora trademark, anyone can produce anything
 and call it 'Fedora'. Including something which doesn't fit into our
 philosophy of freedom at all.

 What are you guys going to do if someone does it anyway in a country
 where Redhat hasn't registered the Fedora trademark, or countries
 where another country already owns the Fedora trademark. Do you think
 spammers are going to host in the good old US of A? Bad argument.

OK, so someone can fool the Elbonians with a bad Fedora distribution. 
The bad guys will not be able to peddle it anywhere else, because the 
trademark will protect it, so the majority of Fedora users will be safe 
from this scam. The system works.

 Strawman arguments make bad policy change decisions.

Indeed.

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-07 Thread Adam Williamson

On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 08:36 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:

 What are you guys going to do if someone does it anyway in a country
 where Redhat hasn't registered the Fedora trademark, or countries
 where another country already owns the Fedora trademark. Do you think
 spammers are going to host in the good old US of A? Bad argument.

Register the trademark there, or do something about it in the US if they
distribute whatever it is they're distributing there.

 Strawman arguments make bad policy change decisions.

Er, change? Nothing's changing. The Fedora trademark and the policy on
using it has been in place for years. You're the one trying to change
things.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-07 Thread Adam Williamson

On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 13:40 +, Matej Cepl wrote:
 Martin Sourada, Wed, 06 Oct 2010 22:39:00 +0200:
  But I have my doubts about
  mozilla in this regard, after all, proper support on linux does not seem
  to be high priority for them
 
 I just fell the urge to mention here
 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577653#c6

That seems extremely stupid, but it's one person's take and the
explanations given elsewhere in this thread have been different. Perhaps
Mozilla's overall policy is not what this Chris Pearce thinks it is.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-06 Thread Matej Cepl

Florent Le Coz, Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:20:04 +0200:
  Trademark cannot be ever free as in freedom.
 That's why Fedora should not ship Firefox, but Iceweasel, or Icecat, or
 Minefield, or anything else that is not trademarked and isn't impossible
 to patch without mozilla's consent.

I won't comment on the trademark issue (because that's just pure lunacy), 
but let me comment here they don't accept my patches, so they are non-
free. That's just nonsense ... any upstream is free to accept or reject 
any patches as they are free to decide. Ask Hans Reiser about reiserfs4. 
The difference is (and neither option makes the project non-free) is 
whether upstream accepts any patches at all (with some margin of error) 
or if they routinely accept patches and they give rational reason when 
rejecting some (and no, you don't have to agree with the reason).

And concerning having private copies of libraries, the difference is 
whether they try to send their patches upstream (and whether they 
actually did that in the past) or not.

Just my 0.02 CZK
-- 
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mceplatceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB  25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
 
To err is human, to purr feline.


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-06 Thread Matej Cepl

Ralf Corsepius, Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:01:09 +0200:
 Close source school of thinking - Trademarks exist to protect an
 enterprise's product and to close out copyiers. FLOSS exists to enable
 people to share.

Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off 
somebody else brand recognition. Which is the only reason why plagiarized 
products are really bad. I would really prefer genuine Rhine Risling than 
some cheap junk which just sells much better under this name.

Matěj
-- 
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mceplatceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB  25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
 
The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money.
-- Alexis de Tocqueville


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-06 Thread Ralf Corsepius

On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
 Ralf Corsepius, Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:01:09 +0200:
 Close source school of thinking - Trademarks exist to protect an
 enterprise's product and to close out copyiers. FLOSS exists to enable
 people to share.

 Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
 somebody else brand recognition.

I disagree - trademarks exist to protect the manufacturer from loosing 
profits because of their products being copied.

Ask Adidas or Nike why they sue Chinese manufacturers and you'll see.
They'll tell you that they loose money because of being copied.

 Which is the only reason why plagiarized
 products are really bad. I would really prefer genuine Rhine Risling than
 some cheap junk which just sells much better under this name.
I drink Baden Riesling ... a Rhine Risling likely originates from 
somewhere else.


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-06 Thread Brandon Lozza

On 10/6/10, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
 I won't comment on the trademark issue (because that's just pure lunacy),
 but let me comment here they don't accept my patches, so they are non-
 free. That's just nonsense ...

Yes it is, that's not the issue. They aren't letting us distribute it
ourselves, unless its brand is removed or we don't make those changes.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Michal Schmidt

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
 On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
  Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
  somebody else brand recognition.
 
 I disagree - trademarks exist to protect the manufacturer from
 loosing profits because of their products being copied.
 
 Ask Adidas or Nike why they sue Chinese manufacturers and you'll see.
 They'll tell you that they loose money because of being copied.

Of course. But there's in fact no disagreement, only looking at
different aspects of the same thing.

Why do you think the copying takes place? Because the companies have
built a good reputation and brand, allowing them to increase profit.

Good quality = good reputation = solid brand = better profits.

Then copyists try to get better profits too without bothering to
build their own good reputation, by deceiving the buyers into thinking
the original company with good reputation produced their goods.


I'm really quite surprised about this thread. Of all the stuff
often put under the confusing term intellectual property I expected
trademarks to be the least controversial.

Michal
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-06 Thread Emmanuel Seyman

* Brandon Lozza [06/10/2010 16:28] :

 Yes it is, that's not the issue. They aren't letting us distribute it
 ourselves, unless its brand is removed or we don't make those changes.

It's their brand, they get to decide what they do (or let you do) with it.

Emmanuel

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-06 Thread Peter Jones

On 10/06/2010 10:08 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
 On 10/6/10, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
 I won't comment on the trademark issue (because that's just pure lunacy),
 but let me comment here they don't accept my patches, so they are non-
 free. That's just nonsense ...
 
 Yes it is, that's not the issue. They aren't letting us distribute it
 ourselves, unless its brand is removed or we don't make those changes.

On the contrary, distribution is the thing they *are* allowing.

-- 
Peter

First things first -- but not necessarily in that order.
-- The Doctor

01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Ralf Corsepius

On 10/06/2010 04:08 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
 On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
 On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
 Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
 somebody else brand recognition.

 I disagree - trademarks exist to protect the manufacturer from
 loosing profits because of their products being copied.

 Ask Adidas or Nike why they sue Chinese manufacturers and you'll see.
 They'll tell you that they loose money because of being copied.

 Of course. But there's in fact no disagreement, only looking at
 different aspects of the same thing.

 Why do you think the copying takes place? Because the companies have
 built a good reputation and brand, allowing them to increase profit.

 Good quality =  good reputation =  solid brand =  better profits.

I am not disagreeing that restrictive trademarks, patents, restricive 
license etc. all make sense in the commerical world.

However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at 
Freedom - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply 
do not fit into this philosophy.

 Then copyists try to get better profits too without bothering to
 build their own good reputation, by deceiving the buyers into thinking
 the original company with good reputation produced their goods.


 I'm really quite surprised about this thread. Of all the stuff
 often put under the confusing term intellectual property I expected
 trademarks to be the least controversial.
Well, my view differs:
To me, restrictive trademarks are in the same league as patents and 
closed source.
Last century's, commercial world's instruments of protectionism which 
contradict the philosophy behind FLOSS. It's just thanks to the fact 
restrictive prosecution of trademarks are rare in the FLOSS world, 
which has caused it to get away more or less unattended.

Ralf


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Tomas Mraz

On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: 
 On 10/06/2010 04:08 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
  On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
  On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
  Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
  somebody else brand recognition.
 
  I disagree - trademarks exist to protect the manufacturer from
  loosing profits because of their products being copied.
 
  Ask Adidas or Nike why they sue Chinese manufacturers and you'll see.
  They'll tell you that they loose money because of being copied.
 
  Of course. But there's in fact no disagreement, only looking at
  different aspects of the same thing.
 
  Why do you think the copying takes place? Because the companies have
  built a good reputation and brand, allowing them to increase profit.
 
  Good quality =  good reputation =  solid brand =  better profits.
 
 I am not disagreeing that restrictive trademarks, patents, restricive 
 license etc. all make sense in the commerical world.
 
 However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at 
 Freedom - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply 
 do not fit into this philosophy.
I give +1 to this. On the other hand Fedora also is (was?) a project
where individual package maintainers had the biggest influence on what
packages ship if they do not cross some fundamental legal limits. This
changed in many ways recently and the restrictions and requirements are
more and more technical, not just legal, and even controversial. The
problem here really is that some not so important? projects are forced
to accept all the restrictions and requirements and other more
important? projects get a free pass from them. This is unfortunate and
it does not improve the spirit of the package maintainers.

-- 
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
  Turkish proverb

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Nathaniel McCallum

On 10/06/2010 10:41 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
 On 10/06/2010 04:08 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
 On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
 On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
 Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
 somebody else brand recognition.

 I disagree - trademarks exist to protect the manufacturer from
 loosing profits because of their products being copied.

 Ask Adidas or Nike why they sue Chinese manufacturers and you'll see.
 They'll tell you that they loose money because of being copied.

 Of course. But there's in fact no disagreement, only looking at
 different aspects of the same thing.

 Why do you think the copying takes place? Because the companies have
 built a good reputation and brand, allowing them to increase profit.

 Good quality =  good reputation =  solid brand =  better profits.
 
 I am not disagreeing that restrictive trademarks, patents, restricive 
 license etc. all make sense in the commerical world.
 
 However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at 
 Freedom - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply 
 do not fit into this philosophy.
 
 Then copyists try to get better profits too without bothering to
 build their own good reputation, by deceiving the buyers into thinking
 the original company with good reputation produced their goods.


 I'm really quite surprised about this thread. Of all the stuff
 often put under the confusing term intellectual property I expected
 trademarks to be the least controversial.
 Well, my view differs:
 To me, restrictive trademarks are in the same league as patents and 
 closed source.
 Last century's, commercial world's instruments of protectionism which 
 contradict the philosophy behind FLOSS. It's just thanks to the fact 
 restrictive prosecution of trademarks are rare in the FLOSS world, 
 which has caused it to get away more or less unattended.

I have an idea... I'm going to create a fork of Fedora.  I'm going to
fill it full of proprietary shit.  I'm going to find the buggiest closed
drivers I can find and load them into the kernel.  I'll also make it so
that you have to type in your credit card number just to login.  I'll
register a fedora derivative domain name and SEO the hell out of it.
Then, I'll tell people my distro is called Fedora Ultimate Edition.
Everyone will believe me because I'll leave all the Fedora artwork in
place.  I'll also publish is under the pseudonym of Ralf Corsepius: Ralf
Corsepius' Fedora Ultimate Edition.

Doing this harms real people and a real organization.  The freedom to
do this is not freedom at all but lunacy.  Its quite simple.  You're
free use my work however you like, even for evil.  But you are not
allowed to claim you are me.  Fedora and Mozilla go way beyond this.
They give you the FREEDOM to call yourself Fedora and/or Mozilla so long
as the work actually represents them. That is where the freedom is
found: freedom with conditions.  Just like every single Free/Open
license: freedom with conditions.  The default state of copyright is
that you have few freedoms.  Copyleft works by granting you additional
freedoms so long as your exercise of those freedoms don't damage anyone
else's use of those freedoms.  The trademark grants of Fedora and
Mozilla work the same way: you can use the trademark so long as your use
of the trademark doesn't impede on anyone else's use of the trademark
(including the original author).  Thus, your argument actually undoes
the entire power of the GPL.

Nathaniel
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Adam Williamson

On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

 However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at 
 Freedom - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply 
 do not fit into this philosophy.

If we don't protect the Fedora trademark, anyone can produce anything
and call it 'Fedora'. Including something which doesn't fit into our
philosophy of freedom at all.

It's really pretty simple: we can only define goals and values and
blahblah for 'the Fedora project' as long as we actually retain control
over 'the Fedora project' (that's we as in the Fedora community, not Red
Hat, BTW) and we can only do that if we control the name 'Fedora'. If
anyone can make anything and call it 'Fedora', how are people to know
what comes from the Fedora project and is backed by its values, and what
doesn't?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Bruno Wolff III

On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 10:59:08 -0400,
  Nathaniel McCallum nathan...@natemccallum.com wrote:
 
 I have an idea... I'm going to create a fork of Fedora.  I'm going to
 fill it full of proprietary shit.  I'm going to find the buggiest closed
 drivers I can find and load them into the kernel.  I'll also make it so
 that you have to type in your credit card number just to login.  I'll
 register a fedora derivative domain name and SEO the hell out of it.
 Then, I'll tell people my distro is called Fedora Ultimate Edition.
 Everyone will believe me because I'll leave all the Fedora artwork in
 place.  I'll also publish is under the pseudonym of Ralf Corsepius: Ralf
 Corsepius' Fedora Ultimate Edition.

The Fedora project goes pretty far in making it easy to produce an unbranded
version of Fedora for people that want to do that. The trademark protected
stuff is supposed to be in just a few packages that have alternative packages
in the distro already, that can replace them. I think that makes a point
that Fedora isn't trying to abuse trademarks to keep supposedly open source
closed.

I don't think Mozilla is trying to abuse their trademarks either (though
there have been open source projects that have). I don't think they go as
far as fedora in making it easy to make a rebranded application, but they
certainly don't make it very difficult either as there is an Iceweasel
out there.

The issue seems to be that Mozilla's policies for their brand conflict
with Fedora's policies for their brand and that Fedora has limited
resources. I don't think anyone is being evil here. There are reasonable
positions on both sides of the argument.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Nathaniel McCallum

On 10/06/2010 12:12 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 10:59:08 -0400,
   Nathaniel McCallum nathan...@natemccallum.com wrote:

 I have an idea... I'm going to create a fork of Fedora.  I'm going to
 fill it full of proprietary shit.  I'm going to find the buggiest closed
 drivers I can find and load them into the kernel.  I'll also make it so
 that you have to type in your credit card number just to login.  I'll
 register a fedora derivative domain name and SEO the hell out of it.
 Then, I'll tell people my distro is called Fedora Ultimate Edition.
 Everyone will believe me because I'll leave all the Fedora artwork in
 place.  I'll also publish is under the pseudonym of Ralf Corsepius: Ralf
 Corsepius' Fedora Ultimate Edition.
 
 The Fedora project goes pretty far in making it easy to produce an unbranded
 version of Fedora for people that want to do that. The trademark protected
 stuff is supposed to be in just a few packages that have alternative packages
 in the distro already, that can replace them. I think that makes a point
 that Fedora isn't trying to abuse trademarks to keep supposedly open source
 closed.
 
 I don't think Mozilla is trying to abuse their trademarks either (though
 there have been open source projects that have). I don't think they go as
 far as fedora in making it easy to make a rebranded application, but they
 certainly don't make it very difficult either as there is an Iceweasel
 out there.
 
 The issue seems to be that Mozilla's policies for their brand conflict
 with Fedora's policies for their brand and that Fedora has limited
 resources. I don't think anyone is being evil here. There are reasonable
 positions on both sides of the argument.

Agreed, I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of saying that any
restriction on trademark impedes the freedoms of the GPL (etc...).  My
point is that it is precisely the limitations that guarantee those freedoms.

I don't see any conflict between Fedora's policy and Mozilla's policy.
Both say that if you redistribute and change code you have to
re-trademark.  Those policies are fair and sensible.  We can either
patch and re-trademark Firefox or ship upstream.  One of the values of
Fedora is stay close to upstream.  Another value is the Firefox brand.
This is a no-brainer choice for Fedora: ship upstream Firefox.  I really
can't believe this thread is as long as it is.

The only possible room for debate that I see is that there is, in
Firefox, a potential conflict between our ship upstream and don't
bundle libs values.  We have FESco to sort that out.

In short: No big deal. Close the thread. Move on. ;)

Nathaniel
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Bruno Wolff III

On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:29:59 -0400,
  Nathaniel McCallum nathan...@natemccallum.com wrote:
 
 The only possible room for debate that I see is that there is, in
 Firefox, a potential conflict between our ship upstream and don't
 bundle libs values.  We have FESco to sort that out.

Those are the policies I was refering to.

 In short: No big deal. Close the thread. Move on. ;)

Well the project doesn't seem to be coming to consensus on this issue.
Some of us feel that we should provide an Iceweasel or drop Firefox,
similar to other things the project has decided to not package. Others think
that Firefox is so important to the project, that we must make an exception
for it. (And to some extent, that we should stay close to upstream.) Some have
also hoped that Mozilla would change with regard to bundled libraries in the
near future, but that seems pretty unlikely.

I don't think this is just a FESCO issue. I really think this is a board
issue as it has to do with the relative importance of our bundled libraries
policy, our stay close to upstream policies, the impact on our user base
of replaceing Firefox with an unbranded version or just dropping it and
the morale of various developers if we give or don't give Firefox an
exemption to the no bundled libraries policies.

For example it may be that we can't do an Iceweasel, because the current
packagers of Firefox may refuse to do that as an alterative to packaging
Firefox and we may not find new volunteers to do the packaging work.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Chris Adams

Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to said:
 Some have
 also hoped that Mozilla would change with regard to bundled libraries in the
 near future, but that seems pretty unlikely.

I think that's an unfair statement; from what I understand, Firefox has
already unbundled some libraries, and said they will unbundle others
once their changes settle down.

-- 
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Bruno Wolff III

On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:25:27 -0500,
  Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
 Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to said:
  Some have
  also hoped that Mozilla would change with regard to bundled libraries in the
  near future, but that seems pretty unlikely.
 
 I think that's an unfair statement; from what I understand, Firefox has
 already unbundled some libraries, and said they will unbundle others
 once their changes settle down.

I guess that depends on what one means by near and unbundled libraries.
I got the impression that the vpx stuff was months away from being
unbundled. And there is no apparent commitment not to bundle new libraries
going forward. So that there will need to be an ongoing exception to cover
any new libraries that get used by Firefox. It does seem that specific
libraries do end up getting unbundled in most cases eventually. However
at least one library is likely to be a long term fork because Mozilla
and upstream disagree on the feature added to the Mozilla version of
the library.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Andre Robatino

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com writes:

 It's really pretty simple: we can only define goals and values and
 blahblah for 'the Fedora project' as long as we actually retain control
 over 'the Fedora project' (that's we as in the Fedora community, not Red
 Hat, BTW) and we can only do that if we control the name 'Fedora'. If
 anyone can make anything and call it 'Fedora', how are people to know
 what comes from the Fedora project and is backed by its values, and what
 doesn't?

Well, I suppose digital signatures would make this possible - but given that
most people don't know how to use them, and the availability of an infinite
number of free names to choose from, I think trademark restrictions are
reasonable.





-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Gregory Maxwell

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com wrote:
[snip]
 Of course. But there's in fact no disagreement, only looking at
 different aspects of the same thing.

 Why do you think the copying takes place? Because the companies have
 built a good reputation and brand, allowing them to increase profit.

 Good quality = good reputation = solid brand = better profits.

 Then copyists try to get better profits too without bothering to
 build their own good reputation, by deceiving the buyers into thinking
 the original company with good reputation produced their goods.

 I'm really quite surprised about this thread. Of all the stuff
 often put under the confusing term intellectual property I expected
 trademarks to be the least controversial.

Exactly.  I often describe trademarks as a kind of consumer protection
law— but instead of using the blunt tool of government driven
enforcement it relies on the existence of an interested party (the
trademark holder) to provide the protection at their own expense with
enforcement via civil law.

This has advantages (it's very flexible, enforcement can be made to
match the need, the public doesn't need to pay for it directly) and
disadvantages (it suffers if the interested party is either not
interested enough or too interested), but regardless it's pretty much
something categorically different from, say, patents... which have no
consumer-protective properties and which are very difficult to escape
(compared to changing a package name/branding).
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-06 Thread Martin Sourada

On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 09:57 +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
On 09/30/2010 08:54 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
2. The combination of the Mozilla Trademark issue combined with the
strict handling of patches by (corporate|distro)-maintainers (I don't
think that this is a RH/Fedora issue - same with Canonical/Ubuntu)
makes me feel uneasy about ff being called Free sofware.

Please look at this list:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDcomponent=firefoxproduct=Fedoraclassification=Fedora

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDcomponent=thunderbirdproduct=Fedoraclassification=Fedora

There are 1108 open bugs against Firefox and 404 bugs against
Thunderbird and new bugs are coming. And there are only three mozilla
maintainers at Red Hat.

As you can see, it's impossible for us to fix (or even sort!) all
reported bugs so we really have to cooperate with mozilla upstream,
which involves *hundreds* of skilled mozilla hackers.

Right now, we are in process to redirect firefox/thunderbird crashes
directly to mozilla crash database (http://crash-stats.mozilla.com)
which is handled by mozilla guys, instead of our bugzilla, so they can
help us with all Fedora Firefox/Thunderbird crashes.

And you can imagine that we can't achieve that with Fedora customized
Firefox build. If we want help from upstream we have to follow some rules.

I don't want to add more fuel to the fire, but from my viewpoint there
are only three manageable options:

* Grant exception for xulrunner to bundle these libs temporarily
and press Mozilla to add support for system libs.
* Convince mozilla that our (as of now hypothetical) patches to
unbundle the libs are good enough for them to accept their
inclusion in our package without having to re-brand.
* Switch to different upstream (i.e. iceweasel or icecat or
whatever it is called). This is vastly different from
maintaining our own fork...

I would lean towards the first one with strong emphasis on press
Mozilla to add support for system libs. But I have my doubts about
mozilla in this regard, after all, proper support on linux does not seem
to be high priority for them (Why the heck don't they put proper
versions to their shared libs? Why the heck do they bundle codecs
directly and with their own patches and refuse to include patches to
support using system libs?...)

Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Toshio Kuratomi

On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 02:00:50PM +1000, Brendan Jones wrote:
 On 10/07/2010 12:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
  But I agree that having a strict requirement because it's felt that the
  issues that are raised by allowing the requirement to be violated are very
  problematic for us as a distro but then letting certain things bundle
  because they're more important than other packages is morale sapping.
  Fesco is voting in the trac ticket on whether to allow libvpx to be bundled
  and also whether to allow bundling of any library that mozilla decides to in
  the future; I think if that passes the FPC will have to look at making it
  easier for other packages to do the same.
 
  -Toshio
 
 Surely its the users choice. I hate the fact that a distro feels the 
 need to align itself with one or the other - there are plenty 
 alternatives out there (which aren't chromium) that do the job. Let's 
 support these or stop whinging and fork firefox.

Uh. I'm talking purely about bundled libs here which are
a distro/maintainer/packager issue much more than a user issue.  It becomes
a user issue if the distro can't do it's job and keep all of the bundled
libraries up to date and the user is forced to circumvent the distro
packaging.

Trademarks may be more about users butthat's not what I'm talking about
here at all.

-Toshio



pgpSnjbKmCiy3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
 On 10/05/2010 12:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
 On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:08 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:

 That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you
 change the name, in which case you may loose brand recognition.
 Imagine if Linus forbid people from calling their OS Linux if they
 didn't use the binaries provided by him.

 that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are
 obliged to allow you to access and modify their code. They are not
 obliged to allow you to benefit from their reputation.

 Close source school of thinking - Trademarks exist to protect an
 enterprise's product and to close out copyiers. FLOSS exists to enable
 people to share.

 It doesn't make
 any sense to say 'I think this product needs to be modified but I wish
 to be able to represent my modified product as being the same thing as
 the original product in order to benefit from the reputation attached to
 the original product'.

 The overwhelming majority of FLOSS project think differently. They are
 proud of others picking up their works and to redistribute it.

 Or differently: GCC, KDE, QT, GNOME etc. all benefit from them not
 applying trademark restrictions, but from being used (in modified
 versions) on dozens of OSes, distributions etc.

 That said, Fedora's leadership is proud of having pushed Fedora into
 isolation.

 Ralf
 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


Richard Stallman got back to me

I think this is a problem, and FSF people are now studying the
extent of similar restrictions.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
 that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are
 obliged to allow you to access and modify their code. They are not
 obliged to allow you to benefit from their reputation. It doesn't make
 any sense to say 'I think this product needs to be modified but I wish
 to be able to represent my modified product as being the same thing as
 the original product in order to benefit from the reputation attached to
 the original product'.
 --

Trademarks defeat the purpose of it being free software. They impose
restrictions. You have to remove MoFo's artwork and perform a name
change or you're required to get permission from Mozilla to
redistribute a modified binary. That's not free. At the same time does
that logically effect the produced binary if we don't use the Firefox
branding? I don't think the artwork and branding makes it any faster
or more standards compliant or compatible with plugins. It would
instantly remove the restrictions that make it unmaintainable.

 Adam Williamson

Looks like RMS agrees too on the trademark issue.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-05 Thread Thorsten Leemhuis

Kevin Kofler wrote on 02.10.2010 00:56:
 Sven Lankes wrote:
 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577653
 Looking at how rigorous new packages with bundled libs are fought we
 should really stop shipping firefox and start shipping Iceweasel.
 +1
 
 I really don't see why the Firefox stack keeps getting a free ride around 
 our packaging guidelines. Firefox is a package like any others, it MUST 
 respect our packaging guidelines, and that means NO bundled libraries, 
 PERIOD. If that's not possible while still calling it Firefox, it MUST be 
 renamed.

Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question
that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never
bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do now:

 * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not
simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹)

It wouldn't be the first (albeit it likely would be the biggest) fork
where we also still ship the original (dd{,_}rescue comes to my mind),
hence I'd assume the packaging guidelines do not forbid something like
that. Or do they?

CU
knurd

P.S.: No, I'm not trying to shoot down the discussion, as it looks like
it's in its last stages already anyway

(¹) or was I simply to blind to find the review requests in bugzilla
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
 Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question
 that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never
 bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do now:

  * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not
 simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹)


The issue at hand is that Mozilla will not give permission to use
system libs instead of bundled libs while calling it Firefox.


 It wouldn't be the first (albeit it likely would be the biggest) fork
 where we also still ship the original (dd{,_}rescue comes to my mind),
 hence I'd assume the packaging guidelines do not forbid something like
 that. Or do they?

It really wouldn't be a fork at all. From what I can tell it's a build
flag that can be enabled or disabled and automatically takes out the
trademark and copyright artwork. People just don't want to remove the
branding because they presume they know how end users think.

 knurd

Brandon
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-05 Thread Richard Hughes

On 5 October 2010 15:51, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
 It really wouldn't be a fork at all. From what I can tell it's a build
 flag that can be enabled or disabled and automatically takes out the
 trademark and copyright artwork. People just don't want to remove the
 branding because they presume they know how end users think.

I know _for a fact_ my mum just looks for the orange little swirl.

Richard.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-05 Thread Rahul Sundaram

 On 10/05/2010 06:26 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
 Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question
 that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never
 bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do now:

  * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not
 simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹)

 It wouldn't be the first (albeit it likely would be the biggest) fork
 where we also still ship the original (dd{,_}rescue comes to my mind),
 hence I'd assume the packaging guidelines do not forbid something like
 that. Or do they?

No but that would involve actual work rather than merely making the
claim that software licensed under GPL/MPL is non-free if it doesn't
allow the use of a name when patches are applied to it. 

Rahul
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-05 Thread drago01

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
 that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are
 obliged to allow you to access and modify their code. They are not
 obliged to allow you to benefit from their reputation. It doesn't make
 any sense to say 'I think this product needs to be modified but I wish
 to be able to represent my modified product as being the same thing as
 the original product in order to benefit from the reputation attached to
 the original product'.
 --

 Trademarks defeat the purpose of it being free software. They impose
 restrictions. You have to remove MoFo's artwork and perform a name
 change or you're required to get permission from Mozilla to
 redistribute a modified binary.

So?

 That's not free.

It is, as you are _free_ to change the name and artwork anytime you want.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-05 Thread Adam Williamson

On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 08:34 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
  that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are
  obliged to allow you to access and modify their code. They are not
  obliged to allow you to benefit from their reputation. It doesn't make
  any sense to say 'I think this product needs to be modified but I wish
  to be able to represent my modified product as being the same thing as
  the original product in order to benefit from the reputation attached to
  the original product'.
  --
 
 Trademarks defeat the purpose of it being free software. They impose
 restrictions. 

The purpose of free software is not to have no restrictions.

 You have to remove MoFo's artwork and perform a name
 change or you're required to get permission from Mozilla to
 redistribute a modified binary. That's not free. 

Yes, it is.

 At the same time does
 that logically effect the produced binary if we don't use the Firefox
 branding? I don't think the artwork and branding makes it any faster
 or more standards compliant or compatible with plugins. It would
 instantly remove the restrictions that make it unmaintainable.

Practically speaking, it would add an extra burden to the maintainers,
who already do not have enough resources to deal with all the issues.
Again, the reason we don't carry non-upstream patches in Firefox has
nothing to do with the branding issue. It's because we don't have the
resources to maintain non-upstream patches in Firefox.

 Looks like RMS agrees too on the trademark issue.

It would help if you quoted what he actually wrote, rather than
paraphrasing it. (You may also want to note that the GPLv3, whose
drafting process happened long after the trademark issue was public
currency for debate, places no restrictions on trademarking free
software.)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
 You have to remove MoFo's artwork and perform a name
 change or you're required to get permission from Mozilla to
 redistribute a modified binary. That's not free.

 Yes, it is.


In a sense that you're free to do whatever Mozilla says, then yes, it's free.

 Practically speaking, it would add an extra burden to the maintainers,
 who already do not have enough resources to deal with all the issues.
 Again, the reason we don't carry non-upstream patches in Firefox has
 nothing to do with the branding issue. It's because we don't have the
 resources to maintain non-upstream patches in Firefox.

Extra burden to do their assigned jobs? It's Fedora policy not to
include bundled libraries. They should already be removing bundled
libraries, and replacing those requirements with system libraries.
Just like with ALL OF THE OTHER PACKAGES which do not violate policy.
This isn't extra, its minimum. The only extra work they need to do
is maybe think of a name to call it instead of Firefox, and then
implementing the compile time switch. No forking, and it won't be hard
to stay with upstream because you're not forking you're just renaming
and making it use system libraries. Spot does this _by himself_ with
Chromium, which is a lot more advanced/complex than Firefox (Google is
known well for forking and bundling libs).

They would then, according to fulfill policy, have to remove the
trademark code that is restricting them from using system libs in
Firefox instead of bundled libs. Or grant an exceptiion, but why do
they get red carpet treatment when they are being so uncooperative?


 Looks like RMS agrees too on the trademark issue.

 It would help if you quoted what he actually wrote, rather than
 paraphrasing it. (You may also want to note that the GPLv3, whose
 drafting process happened long after the trademark issue was public
 currency for debate, places no restrictions on trademarking free
 software.)


Sure but I hope its not spam:


Delivered-To: bran...@pwnage.ca
Received: by 10.239.131.66 with SMTP id 2cs6683hbm;
Tue, 5 Oct 2010 02:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.45.142 with SMTP id e14mr8020171qaf.117.1286272534057;
Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: r...@gnu.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id u2si11294263qcq.19.2010.10.05.02.55.33;
Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of r...@gnu.org designates
140.186.70.10 as permitted sender) client-ip=140.186.70.10;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
r...@gnu.org designates 140.186.70.10 as permitted sender)
smtp.mail=...@gnu.org
Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from r...@gnu.org)
id 1P34FB-0003dw-0z; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 05:55:33 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
From: Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org
To: Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca
In-reply-to: aanlkti=whj55xtdwfpfxylzuuccyrgqdjwedlkdsv...@mail.gmail.com
(message from Brandon Lozza on Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:26:34 -0400)
Subject: Re: Trademarks make software nonfree?
Reply-to: r...@gnu.org
References: aanlkti=whj55xtdwfpfxylzuuccyrgqdjwedlkdsv...@mail.gmail.com
Message-Id: e1p34fb-0003dw...@fencepost.gnu.org
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 05:55:33 -0400

I was wondering if Mozilla's trademark on the name Firefox makes the
software non free. According to Mozilla you can't redistribute your
own product called Firefox if you make changes to the source code,
unless you want to violate trademark law.

I think this is a problem, and FSF people are now studying the
extent of similar restrictions.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 10/05/2010 06:26 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
 Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question
 that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never
 bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do now:

  * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not
 simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹)

 It wouldn't be the first (albeit it likely would be the biggest) fork
 where we also still ship the original (dd{,_}rescue comes to my mind),
 hence I'd assume the packaging guidelines do not forbid something like
 that. Or do they?

 No but that would involve actual work rather than merely making the
 claim that software licensed under GPL/MPL is non-free if it doesn't
 allow the use of a name when patches are applied to it.

 Rahul
 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


I don't blanket label everything with open code as free software.
Some stuff bundles things which make it non-free. Code open-ness !=
free. You can call Firefox open source if you want, but it's not free
software.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-05 Thread Adam Williamson

On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 11:42 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
 On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
  You have to remove MoFo's artwork and perform a name
  change or you're required to get permission from Mozilla to
  redistribute a modified binary. That's not free.
 
  Yes, it is.

 In a sense that you're free to do whatever Mozilla says, then yes, it's 
 free.

No, in the sense that it meets the definition of software freedom. Which
is what we ought to be talking about here, as a debate about 'freedom'
as a philosophical concept is something I don't have time for this
century.

  Practically speaking, it would add an extra burden to the maintainers,
  who already do not have enough resources to deal with all the issues.
  Again, the reason we don't carry non-upstream patches in Firefox has
  nothing to do with the branding issue. It's because we don't have the
  resources to maintain non-upstream patches in Firefox.
 
 Extra burden to do their assigned jobs? It's Fedora policy not to
 include bundled libraries. They should already be removing bundled
 libraries, and replacing those requirements with system libraries.
 Just like with ALL OF THE OTHER PACKAGES which do not violate policy.
 This isn't extra, its minimum. The only extra work they need to do
 is maybe think of a name to call it instead of Firefox, and then
 implementing the compile time switch. No forking, and it won't be hard
 to stay with upstream because you're not forking you're just renaming
 and making it use system libraries. Spot does this _by himself_ with
 Chromium, which is a lot more advanced/complex than Firefox (Google is
 known well for forking and bundling libs).

I think you're unnecessarily muddying up a simple practical discussion
(how do we go about getting these bundled libs removed) with overheated
ideological rhetoric, and it really isn't helping anyone get anything
done.

 Sure but I hope its not spam:

 I was wondering if Mozilla's trademark on the name Firefox makes the
 software non free. According to Mozilla you can't redistribute your
 own product called Firefox if you make changes to the source code,
 unless you want to violate trademark law.
 
 I think this is a problem, and FSF people are now studying the
 extent of similar restrictions.

So, he doesn't actually answer the question, there. RH legal has asked
the question before and got a direct yes/no answer, and the answer is
no, it does not make the software non-free.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-05 Thread Rahul Sundaram

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Brandon Lozza  wrote:



 I don't blanket label everything with open code as free software.
 Some stuff bundles things which make it non-free. Code open-ness !=
 free. You can call Firefox open source if you want, but it's not free
 software.


You claimed that FSF will back your assertions and so far they haven't made
any determination.  We will revisit this issue when they do.  Until then,
just move on.  You are not going to influence Fedora's policies by repeating
yourself endlessly.

Rahul
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-05 Thread drago01

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
 On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
 You have to remove MoFo's artwork and perform a name
 change or you're required to get permission from Mozilla to
 redistribute a modified binary. That's not free.

 Yes, it is.


 In a sense that you're free to do whatever Mozilla says, then yes, it's 
 free.

By your logic pretty much every software is non free.

$insertgplprogramm ... I cannot link it against proprietary software
which makes it non free.

$randombsdlicensedprogram ... I cannot remove that damned copyright
notice ? Thats a restriction  its non free.



But I digress. (Just wanted to show that the claim it has
restrictions and thus is non free is nonsense).

But anyway in case you missed it trademarks and copyright are entirely
different things.  The whole free software concept applies to the
_later_ NOT the former.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-05 Thread Toshio Kuratomi

On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 02:56:34PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
 Kevin Kofler wrote on 02.10.2010 00:56:
  Sven Lankes wrote:
  https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577653
  Looking at how rigorous new packages with bundled libs are fought we
  should really stop shipping firefox and start shipping Iceweasel.
  +1
  
  I really don't see why the Firefox stack keeps getting a free ride around 
  our packaging guidelines. Firefox is a package like any others, it MUST 
  respect our packaging guidelines, and that means NO bundled libraries, 
  PERIOD. If that's not possible while still calling it Firefox, it MUST be 
  renamed.
 
 Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question
 that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never
 bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do now:
 
  * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not
 simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹)
 
 It wouldn't be the first (albeit it likely would be the biggest) fork
 where we also still ship the original (dd{,_}rescue comes to my mind),
 hence I'd assume the packaging guidelines do not forbid something like
 that. Or do they?
 
IIRC this has come up on the mailing lists before and the mozilla
maintainers didn't want to have the fork in Fedora.  However, there is no
packaging guideline that would prevent this.  As a member of the FPC (but
not FESCo, where a conflict over this might ultimately go), I would be for
allowing such a package if someone wanted to package it for review.

-Toshio


pgphLaOhxMSWW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-05 Thread Toshio Kuratomi

On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 08:22:57AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
 On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 08:34 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
  On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
   that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are
   obliged to allow you to access and modify their code. They are not
   obliged to allow you to benefit from their reputation. It doesn't make
   any sense to say 'I think this product needs to be modified but I wish
   to be able to represent my modified product as being the same thing as
   the original product in order to benefit from the reputation attached to
   the original product'.
   --
  
  Trademarks defeat the purpose of it being free software. They impose
  restrictions. 
 
 The purpose of free software is not to have no restrictions.
 
  You have to remove MoFo's artwork and perform a name
  change or you're required to get permission from Mozilla to
  redistribute a modified binary. That's not free. 
 
 Yes, it is.
 
  At the same time does
  that logically effect the produced binary if we don't use the Firefox
  branding? I don't think the artwork and branding makes it any faster
  or more standards compliant or compatible with plugins. It would
  instantly remove the restrictions that make it unmaintainable.
 
 Practically speaking, it would add an extra burden to the maintainers,
 who already do not have enough resources to deal with all the issues.
 Again, the reason we don't carry non-upstream patches in Firefox has
 nothing to do with the branding issue. It's because we don't have the
 resources to maintain non-upstream patches in Firefox.
 
I wish people would stop repeating this particular bit of justification for
the issue of bundling libraries.  I can see it for other suggested patches
for firefox but in the case of bundled libraries, this is work that we
require of all packages because there's security ramifications for our
product, the Fedora distribution by not unbundling.

We require other packages to come up with the maintainership resources to
unbundle the included libraries if this is found at review otherwise they
don't get into Fedora.  If this is found post-review, we don't require the
maintainer to fix this immediately but we do require them to apply a patch
to fix the issue if someone else provides one and we strongly encourage them
to fix it themselves if they have the know-how.

-Toshio


pgpphsJkxsHkc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-05 Thread Adam Williamson

On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 13:14 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

  Practically speaking, it would add an extra burden to the maintainers,
  who already do not have enough resources to deal with all the issues.
  Again, the reason we don't carry non-upstream patches in Firefox has
  nothing to do with the branding issue. It's because we don't have the
  resources to maintain non-upstream patches in Firefox.
  
 I wish people would stop repeating this particular bit of justification for
 the issue of bundling libraries.  I can see it for other suggested patches
 for firefox but in the case of bundled libraries, this is work that we
 require of all packages because there's security ramifications for our
 product, the Fedora distribution by not unbundling.

That wasn't my intention. The debate seemed to have broadened from the
issue of the bundled libraries out to become the tired old 'Firefox is
non-free oh noes' thread again.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-05 Thread Adam Jackson

On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 11:46 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:

 I don't blanket label everything with open code as free software.
 Some stuff bundles things which make it non-free. Code open-ness !=
 free. You can call Firefox open source if you want, but it's not free
 software.

You certainly have the right to interpret those words however you like,
but over here in consensus reality, that's not what they mean.

I would request that you limit your discussions on the development list
to topics relevant to Fedora development.  You seem instead to be
talking about a rather well-hashed point of international trademark law
that's not going to get resolved anytime soon, regardless of how
fervently you might wish it.

- ajax


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-05 Thread Stephen John Smoogen

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 09:24, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:


 I'll refrain from replying further on until I have a reply from
 Richard, but you're totally wrong and your love for Firefox is
 blinding your principals (if you have any). You would STILL HAVE the

Brandon that was un called for and not excellent to each other. Please
take this off list and come back when your temper is under control.



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brandon Lozza  wrote:

 el
 

 Fedora shouldn't include software it doesn't have the resources to
 maintain.

 Fedora doesn't have resources to fork it.  Not the same thing at all.

 Rahul

 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


Debian doesn't fork it either, Iceweasel is Firefox without the
trademark and non-free copyright artwork. They are then allowed to
make security fixes to protect their users.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
 So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free
 software?  Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that
 interpretation.

 Rahul

I'm sure they will. Trademark restrictions violate one of the four
freedoms and if you want I can ask Richard Stallman directly if this
trademark rule makes software non-free. Actually I'll just go ahead
and do it just to prove a point.

If I wanted to Fork Fedora, and I called it Fedora, i'd soon see a
letter from Redhat legal. I'm not free to use the name. Thus, if I
fork Fedora I am required by trademark law to rename it or be in
violation.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:

 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
  We have been through this before.  If you take Fedora and modify it, you
 are
  not allowed to use the Fedora name either.  Trademark cannot be ever free
 as
  in freedom.
 
  Rahul

 Exactly the point I brought up Rahul, thanks for your irrelevance. If
 you want to fork Fedora, you can't call it Fedora because Redhat will
 sue you for trademark violations just the same as Mozilla would if you
 distributed a modified version of Firefox.

 Fedora is free software until you use the trademark and aren't Redhat.


I am confused by this argument.  Are you claiming that Fedora is same as
Mozilla Firefox and both are non-free?

Rahul
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-04 Thread Florent Le Coz

  On 04/10/10 14:52, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
  Trademark cannot be ever free as in freedom.
That's why Fedora should not ship Firefox, but Iceweasel, or Icecat, or 
Minefield, or anything else that is not trademarked and isn't impossible 
to patch without mozilla's consent.

-- 
Florent Le Coz
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
 We have been through this before.  If you take Fedora and modify it, you are
 not allowed to use the Fedora name either.  Trademark cannot be ever free as
 in freedom.

 Rahul

Exactly the point I brought up Rahul, thanks for your irrelevance. If
you want to fork Fedora, you can't call it Fedora because Redhat will
sue you for trademark violations just the same as Mozilla would if you
distributed a modified version of Firefox.

Fedora is free software until you use the trademark and aren't Redhat.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-04 Thread Martin Stransky

On 10/04/2010 10:24 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
 Anyway, the situation is worser then people believe, because no matter
 how many maintainers MoFo apps have in Fedora - they just can't fix
 bugs and close tickets, even ones with clean and sane patches
 attached.

Unfortunately you forget to attach the bugs here. We're taking fixes for 
arches to Fedora package, there are s390 fixes in Fedora for instance.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
 It would be really helpful if instead of calling programs
 unmaintainable and similar non-sense you would research a bit what
 really is the problem ... take a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
 buglist.cgi?cmdtype=doremremaction=runnamedcmd=all%20NEW%20abrt%
 20crashessharer_id=74116 ... that's 1473 NEW untriaged abrt bugs.


 There is absolutely no permission required. I saw plenty of patches which
 were accepted upstream and just few which were rejected with always
 clearly stated reasons (not that I agree with all of those reasons, but
 again before calling Firefox proprietary product, it would be nice to
 educate yourself).

 Concerning CLOSED/UPSTREAM resolution ... again, I am not happy with it
 myself, but instead of calling MoFo proprietary a bit of patches (this
 time on bugs https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400598, https://
 bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=294608, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
 show_bug.cgi?id=356853, and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?
 id=569371) would be helpful. How is your Perlfoo? See what I wrote on
 this theme before (http://article.gmane.org/
 gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/79936/) and feel free to provide patches
 for some better solution of the situation. I can assure you, that well
 written patches will be welcomed upstream.



 Maybe you want to maintain iceweasel  co. in Fedora? Good luck, but not
 for me, thanks.

 At least with iceweasel, those bugs you pointed out can be fixed by
 Fedora and not have to wait months in the queue over at Mozilla, if
 they even bother accepting them. Iceweasel would also allow us to use
 openSUSE's KDE patchset for deep integration, something Mozilla says
 violates trademark law by patching and distributing. NON FREE


In fact this free pass mozilla firefox gets should apply to Chromium
too. At least in Chromium's case, Spot IS ALLOWED to make it use
system libs. He doesn't have to ask the mother-ship permission.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-04 Thread Matej Cepl

Peter Lemenkov, Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:22:24 +0400:
 Unfortunately you're talking (and the rest Fedora Mozilla team) about

BTW, just as a way of clarification, my rant was not targeted 
specifically at you, but everybody (and it is currently a big fashion) 
ranting against “proprietary” MoFo. No personal offense was meant. Sorry, 
if it sounded so.

 different task - you're talking about fixing Mozilla upstream product
 while I'm talking about fixing Fedora bugs. No one from community is
 allowed to fix Mozilla in Fedora. That's why it's absolutely
 unmaintainable.

Yes, it is a problem, but I am quite sure, if you talk with me and point 
to something important, I will make sure Martin  co. knows about it.

 Read it again - we can't fix mozilla products in Fedora. Theoretically
 we could send patches to MoFo, but some of them will be rejected due to
 political reasons (see links in this thread for their recent decision

No need to call it “political reasons” (on the side of MoFo) ... nowhere 
in the definition of free software is written, that upstream has to 
accept your patches. It may happen upstream (any upstream) disagrees with 
your patch, you may not agree with them, but in the end it is their 
decision and if you don't agree you can either suck it up or fork. Both 
alternatives are still freely open for you (and Fedora as whole) in MoFo 
case as well (just to make this clear).

If there is any political reason, then it is Fedora/RH policy to oblige 
with upstream trademark terms and to keep our Firefox/Thunderbird/
XULRunner as close to the upstream as possible to save us work 
maintaining our patches and not go Iceweasel way.

The only thing I would like to ask all participants in this thread is to 
keep things in the perspective ... Firefox is mostly working more or less 
well (yes, I know more than most participants in this thread how many 
bugs there are present). If you really want to help, may I suggest those 
1400 abrt bugs? I would really really welcome any help anybody can spare, 
and I am willing to share freely whatever experience (and tools) I have 
in dealing with them.

Best,

Matěj

-- 
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mceplatceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB  25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
 
Q: Is vi an easy editor to learn, is it intuitive?
A: Yes, some of us think so. But most people think that we are
   crazy.
-- vi FAQ

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
 It would be really helpful if instead of calling programs
 unmaintainable and similar non-sense you would research a bit what
 really is the problem ... take a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
 buglist.cgi?cmdtype=doremremaction=runnamedcmd=all%20NEW%20abrt%
 20crashessharer_id=74116 ... that's 1473 NEW untriaged abrt bugs.


 There is absolutely no permission required. I saw plenty of patches which
 were accepted upstream and just few which were rejected with always
 clearly stated reasons (not that I agree with all of those reasons, but
 again before calling Firefox proprietary product, it would be nice to
 educate yourself).

 Concerning CLOSED/UPSTREAM resolution ... again, I am not happy with it
 myself, but instead of calling MoFo proprietary a bit of patches (this
 time on bugs https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400598, https://
 bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=294608, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
 show_bug.cgi?id=356853, and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?
 id=569371) would be helpful. How is your Perlfoo? See what I wrote on
 this theme before (http://article.gmane.org/
 gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/79936/) and feel free to provide patches
 for some better solution of the situation. I can assure you, that well
 written patches will be welcomed upstream.



 Maybe you want to maintain iceweasel  co. in Fedora? Good luck, but not
 for me, thanks.

At least with iceweasel, those bugs you pointed out can be fixed by
Fedora and not have to wait months in the queue over at Mozilla, if
they even bother accepting them. Iceweasel would also allow us to use
openSUSE's KDE patchset for deep integration, something Mozilla says
violates trademark law by patching and distributing. NON FREE
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Brandon Lozza  wrote:



 However, Mozilla says that distributing a modified product with their
 name violates Trademark law.


We have been through this before.  If you take Fedora and modify it, you are
not allowed to use the Fedora name either.  Trademark cannot be ever free as
in freedom.

Rahul
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-04 Thread seth vidal

On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 09:23 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
  So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free
  software?  Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that
  interpretation.
 
  Rahul
 
 I'm sure they will. Trademark restrictions violate one of the four
 freedoms and if you want I can ask Richard Stallman directly if this
 trademark rule makes software non-free. Actually I'll just go ahead
 and do it just to prove a point.
 
 If I wanted to Fork Fedora, and I called it Fedora, i'd soon see a
 letter from Redhat legal. I'm not free to use the name. Thus, if I
 fork Fedora I am required by trademark law to rename it or be in
 violation.

You might consider taking this discussion to the legal alias and talking
it over there. It seems to be beyond 'devel' at the moment.

thanks
-sv


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

 On 10/04/2010 06:50 PM, Florent Le Coz wrote:
   On 04/10/10 14:52, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
  Trademark cannot be ever free as in freedom.
 That's why Fedora should not ship Firefox, but Iceweasel, or Icecat, or 
 Minefield, or anything else that is not trademarked and isn't impossible 
 to patch without mozilla's consent.

Ignoring upstream and patching without consent is only feasible if you
have the amount of resources to do a good job with that.  Fedora doesn't
have that. 

Rahul

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brandon Lozza  wrote:

 el https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

 Fedora shouldn't include software it doesn't have the resources to
 maintain.


Fedora doesn't have resources to fork it.  Not the same thing at all.

Rahul
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
 So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free
 software?  Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that
 interpretation.

 Rahul
 I'm sure they will. Trademark restrictions violate one of the four
 freedoms and if you want I can ask Richard Stallman directly if this
 trademark rule makes software non-free. Actually I'll just go ahead
 and do it just to prove a point.

 Sure.  I have asked and know the answer but go ahead.

 Rahul

GNU Icecat doesn't tell you something?
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
 So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free
 software?  Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that
 interpretation.

 Rahul
 I'm sure they will. Trademark restrictions violate one of the four
 freedoms and if you want I can ask Richard Stallman directly if this
 trademark rule makes software non-free. Actually I'll just go ahead
 and do it just to prove a point.

 Sure.  I have asked and know the answer but go ahead.

 Rahul

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it
do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

And the freedom Trademark law prevents in Firefox's case:

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
(freedom 3)[SIC]. By doing this you can give the whole community a
chance to benefit from your changes[SIC]. Access to the source code is
a precondition for this.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010/10/4 Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com:
 Peter Lemenkov, Mon, 04 Oct 2010 12:24:00 +0400:

 So no excuse here, please - just allow us fixing bugs.

 There is absolutely no permission required.

Unfortunately you're talking (and the rest Fedora Mozilla team) about
different task - you're talking about fixing Mozilla upstream product
while I'm talking about fixing Fedora bugs. No one from community is
allowed to fix Mozilla in Fedora. That's why it's absolutely
unmaintainable.

Read it again - we can't fix mozilla products in Fedora. Theoretically
we could send patches to MoFo, but some of them will be rejected due
to political reasons (see links in this thread for their recent
decision regarding bundled libs). So, no thanks - I would like to stay
away from such proprietary and badly manageable stuff.

-- 
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brandon Lozza  wrote:


 GNU Icecat doesn't tell you something?


 You said you are going to ask FSF.  How about you just ask them if the
 presence of a trademark is enough to call software non-free and come back.
 Icecat was forked for other reasons (ie) for plugins.

 Rahul

 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


If the owner of the trademark doesn't grant a license that is
compatible with a free software license, then the software is non
free. Linus doesn't go around telling people they can't redistribute a
modified linux kernel. His only restriction on the linux trademark is
that it is used to label things that use the linux kernel. Mozilla
specifically forbids redistributing modified binaries which violates
freedom #3 (the 4th freedom)
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

 On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
 So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free
 software?  Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that
 interpretation.

 Rahul
 I'm sure they will. Trademark restrictions violate one of the four
 freedoms and if you want I can ask Richard Stallman directly if this
 trademark rule makes software non-free. Actually I'll just go ahead
 and do it just to prove a point.

Sure.  I have asked and know the answer but go ahead. 

Rahul
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
 No need to call it “political reasons” (on the side of MoFo) ... nowhere
 in the definition of free software is written, that upstream has to
 accept your patches. It may happen upstream (any upstream) disagrees with
 your patch, you may not agree with them, but in the end it is their
 decision and if you don't agree you can either suck it up or fork. Both
 alternatives are still freely open for you (and Fedora as whole) in MoFo
 case as well (just to make this clear).


However, Mozilla says that distributing a modified product with their
name violates Trademark law. Fedora would have to change its name,
just like Debian did with Iceweasel. Just like CentOS does with the
RHEL source. Just like Scientific Linux, Oracle Enterprise Linux,
countless others based on products with trademarks. The Mozilla
trademark makes Firefox non-free, but anything based on it that gets
a name change _IS_ FREE as in Freedom. It IS Political. As-is, they
can't modify Firefox and distribute it. They just send patches and
wait for Mozilla to fix it.

 If there is any political reason, then it is Fedora/RH policy to oblige
 with upstream trademark terms and to keep our Firefox/Thunderbird/
 XULRunner as close to the upstream as possible to save us work
 maintaining our patches and not go Iceweasel way.

Fedora already does this and it's unacceptable. That's why we say
Firefox is non free because under the name Firefox we are NOT FREE
to distribute our changes.


 The only thing I would like to ask all participants in this thread is to
 keep things in the perspective ... Firefox is mostly working more or less
 well (yes, I know more than most participants in this thread how many
 bugs there are present). If you really want to help, may I suggest those
 1400 abrt bugs? I would really really welcome any help anybody can spare,
 and I am willing to share freely whatever experience (and tools) I have
 in dealing with them.


The only thing that will happen with the 1400 abrt bugs is that
Mozilla will be asked to fix them while we wait for them to be a
little less busy adding directx 3d support and other windows exclusive
features.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-04 Thread Martin Stransky

On 09/30/2010 08:54 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
2. The combination of the Mozilla Trademark issue combined with the
strict handling of patches by (corporate|distro)-maintainers (I don't
think that this is a RH/Fedora issue - same with Canonical/Ubuntu)
makes me feel uneasy about ff being called Free sofware.

Please look at this list:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDcomponent=firefoxproduct=Fedoraclassification=Fedora

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDcomponent=thunderbirdproduct=Fedoraclassification=Fedora

There are 1108 open bugs against Firefox and 404 bugs against
Thunderbird and new bugs are coming. And there are only three mozilla
maintainers at Red Hat.

As you can see, it's impossible for us to fix (or even sort!) all
reported bugs so we really have to cooperate with mozilla upstream,
which involves *hundreds* of skilled mozilla hackers.

And you can imagine that we can't achieve that with Fedora customized
Firefox build. If we want help from upstream we have to follow some rules.

If Red Hat paid hundreds mozilla hackers to work on Fedora/Red Hat
mozilla packages, we would start talking about driving it. Until then we
don't have any other choice. And it's really not about Mozilla Trademark.

ma.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brandon Lozza  wrote:



 GNU Icecat doesn't tell you something?


You said you are going to ask FSF.  How about you just ask them if the
presence of a trademark is enough to call software non-free and come back.
Icecat was forked for other reasons (ie) for plugins.

Rahul
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-04 Thread Kevin Kofler

Martin Stransky wrote:
 Right now, we are in process to redirect firefox/thunderbird crashes
 directly to mozilla crash database (http://crash-stats.mozilla.com)
 which is handled by mozilla guys, instead of our bugzilla, so they can
 help us with all Fedora Firefox/Thunderbird crashes.
 
 And you can imagine that we can't achieve that with Fedora customized
 Firefox build. If we want help from upstream we have to follow some rules.

Sadly, that's another symptom of a really uncooperative upstream. :-(

KDE has no distro patch approval process, we have several KDE patches (and 
other distros have even more of them), yet DrKonqi still reports all crashes 
directly to the upstream KDE Bugzilla. (This is how upstream ships it.) They 
can handle that just fine (and in fact generally prefer this system to 
having the crash reports scattered in downstream bugzillas).

Mozilla just always has to be a PITA.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-04 Thread Matej Cepl

Peter Lemenkov, Mon, 04 Oct 2010 12:24:00 +0400:
 In fact the backlog for Mozilla-related packages is even bigger, because
 (due to the fact that MoFo products are unmaintainable at all) many of
 them were closed automatically with new Fedora releases.

It would be really helpful if instead of calling programs 
unmaintainable and similar non-sense you would research a bit what 
really is the problem ... take a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
buglist.cgi?cmdtype=doremremaction=runnamedcmd=all%20NEW%20abrt%
20crashessharer_id=74116 ... that's 1473 NEW untriaged abrt bugs. There 
is absolutely nothing unmaintainable on that, only plenty of people who 
are calling MoFo and everybody names but they are not willing to move 
their butt and help triage this (and yes, abrt seems to be slightly 
better now, so the backlog shouldn't hopefully be increasing that much).

 So no excuse here, please - just allow us fixing bugs.

There is absolutely no permission required. I saw plenty of patches which 
were accepted upstream and just few which were rejected with always 
clearly stated reasons (not that I agree with all of those reasons, but 
again before calling Firefox proprietary product, it would be nice to 
educate yourself).

Concerning CLOSED/UPSTREAM resolution ... again, I am not happy with it 
myself, but instead of calling MoFo proprietary a bit of patches (this 
time on bugs https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400598, https://
bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=294608, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
show_bug.cgi?id=356853, and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?
id=569371) would be helpful. How is your Perlfoo? See what I wrote on 
this theme before (http://article.gmane.org/
gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/79936/) and feel free to provide patches 
for some better solution of the situation. I can assure you, that well 
written patches will be welcomed upstream.

 we MUST replace proprietary MoFo products with open
 alternatives.

Who is we?

I certainly don't intend to replace for my personal needs Firefox with 
either of Chromium (ehm, that's an example of open development, right?), 
Opera, Epiphany (too simple for my needs, sorry ... I like those guys and 
I was using Epiphany for years, but it is just too little too late for my 
personal use), galeon (you would need miraculous powers to revive this 
dead corpse), or any non-Gnome alternative. If we (whoever it is) must do 
something, then where are *your* patches? (http://slashdot.org/
features/98/10/13/1423253.shtml)

Maybe you want to maintain iceweasel  co. in Fedora? Good luck, but not 
for me, thanks.

Best,

Matěj
-- 
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mceplatceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB  25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
 
Courage is resistance of fear, mastery of fear, not absence of
fear.


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 10/04/2010 06:50 PM, Florent Le Coz wrote:
   On 04/10/10 14:52, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
  Trademark cannot be ever free as in freedom.
 That's why Fedora should not ship Firefox, but Iceweasel, or Icecat, or
 Minefield, or anything else that is not trademarked and isn't impossible
 to patch without mozilla's consent.

 Ignoring upstream and patching without consent is only feasible if you
 have the amount of resources to do a good job with that.  Fedora doesn't
 have that.

 Rahul

 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


Fedora shouldn't include software it doesn't have the resources to maintain.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010/10/4 Martin Stransky stran...@redhat.com:

 FIXED UPSTREAM is a correct resolution for the bug, and it has been
 fixed by upstream and came to F13 in firefox 3.6.x.

That's an absolutely great tactics to deal with bug reports! And
that's why I call proprietary Mozilla software as unmaintainable - you
doesn't and you can't  fix issues (in this case you did close two
tickets but both issues are still remains unresolved).
-- 
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010/10/4 Martin Stransky stran...@redhat.com:

Please look at this list:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDcomponent=firefoxproduct=Fedoraclassification=Fedora

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDcomponent=thunderbirdproduct=Fedoraclassification=Fedora

There are 1108 open bugs against Firefox and 404 bugs against
Thunderbird and new bugs are coming. And there are only three mozilla
maintainers at Red Hat.

In fact the backlog for Mozilla-related packages is even bigger,
because (due to the fact that MoFo products are unmaintainable at all)
many of them were closed automatically with new Fedora releases.

Anyway, the situation is worser then people believe, because no matter
how many maintainers MoFo apps have in Fedora - they just can't fix
bugs and close tickets, even ones with clean and sane patches
attached.

Speaking of me - I opened two tickets regarding PowerPC support with
small patches attached - so far one was closed automatically with next
Fedora release, and another will be closed in a next few months. That
was highly disappointing for me, because I wasn't aware about the
current situation with licensing deal between RH and MoFo, which is
preventing Fedora packagers (us, I mean) from fixing issues.

So no excuse here, please - just allow us fixing bugs. So far I see
the only way to fix this sorrow situation (that was proposed several
times before) - we MUST replace proprietary MoFo products with open
alternatives.
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010/10/4 Martin Stransky stran...@redhat.com:
 On 10/04/2010 10:24 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
 Anyway, the situation is worser then people believe, because no matter
 how many maintainers MoFo apps have in Fedora - they just can't fix
 bugs and close tickets, even ones with clean and sane patches
 attached.

 Unfortunately you forget to attach the bugs here. We're taking fixes for
 arches to Fedora package, there are s390 fixes in Fedora for instance.

No, I wasn't forget - I just gave up to get any feedback from you on
these two issues:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/513743
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/578892

In fact I do got a feedback from you on the first one - you closed it
as FIXED UPSTREAM which was absolutely unacceptable because this
issue still wasn't fixed. So I reopened it with little hope that
someone will apply the attached patch. Unfortunately even this simple
issue was closed automatically with next Fedora release.

I also cloned this ticket for F-12 (see next ticket) because it is
also affected and don't see any feedback at all.

This funny story clearly shows that we need to be able to fix issues
w/o asking a permissions from MoFo. Like we did with the rest of
Fedora stuff.

I really feel somewhat uncomfortably because I'm explaining obvious
things in front of wide and clever audience here.
-- 
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Florent Le Coz lo...@louiz.org wrote:
  On 04/10/10 15:23, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
 Ignoring upstream and patching without consent is only feasible if you
 have the amount of resources to do a good job with that.  Fedora doesn't
 have that.

 Rahul
 I'm not talking about ignoring upstream. You can still work with them
 (reporting bug, sending fixes to upstream) while not using their
 trademark, no?
 Fedora could then fix the software when upstream refuses to take the
 patches we send them…

 --
 Florent Le Coz
 --
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


I don't see why we can't do this. Rahul has mentioned before that it's
all about the name Firefox, they want the brand in Fedora.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-04 Thread Dennis Jacobfeuerborn

On 10/04/2010 03:34 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundarammethe...@gmail.com  wrote:
   On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
 So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free
 software?  Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that
 interpretation.

 Rahul
 I'm sure they will. Trademark restrictions violate one of the four
 freedoms and if you want I can ask Richard Stallman directly if this
 trademark rule makes software non-free. Actually I'll just go ahead
 and do it just to prove a point.

 Sure.  I have asked and know the answer but go ahead.

 Rahul

 The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

 The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it
 do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
 precondition for this.

 The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

 And the freedom Trademark law prevents in Firefox's case:

 The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
 (freedom 3)[SIC]. By doing this you can give the whole community a
 chance to benefit from your changes[SIC]. Access to the source code is
 a precondition for this.

Notice how the last clause misses using the same name? You are perfectly 
free to distribute modified versions as long as you don't call them 
Firefox. That's what the Iceweasel people decided to do.

So all freedoms are intact.

Regards,
   Dennis
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs