If someone implement --enable-system-libvpx --enable-system-vorbis --enable-system-ogg --enable-system-theora into the mozilla source, we can easily remove source for the libraries. And Fedora will be happy. :-)
Takanori
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 06:37:33PM +0900, Takanori MATSUURA wrote:
If someone implement --enable-system-libvpx --enable-system-vorbis --enable-system-ogg --enable-system-theora into the mozilla source, we can easily remove source for the libraries. And Fedora will be happy. :-)
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.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 02:19:02PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 06:37:33PM +0900, Takanori MATSUURA wrote:
If someone implement --enable-system-libvpx --enable-system-vorbis --enable-system-ogg --enable-system-theora into the mozilla source, we can easily remove source for the libraries. And Fedora will be happy. :-)
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.
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/472
-Toshio
On 09/30/2010 05:19 AM, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 06:37:33PM +0900, Takanori MATSUURA wrote:
If someone implement --enable-system-libvpx --enable-system-vorbis --enable-system-ogg --enable-system-theora into the mozilla source, we can easily remove source for the libraries. And Fedora will be happy. :-)
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.
I personally don't care what we call it. I'm not going to start breaking funny cat videos just to meet packaging ideals on a deadline. I'd rather deal with all you guys complaining on fedora-devel and in fesco tickets than the influx of bugs if I started breaking shit. It's bad enough that there are more bugs than we can handle. Besides, Mozilla has a good track record of allowing system libs after things settle down, and I have no doubt that we'll get these at some point.
From Mozilla's perspective, they could:
1. Do what they are doing now, temporarily not allow a few new system libs, waiting until they get banged into shape and *then* enable system libs (down the road). 2. Bang on the code in private and wait until it meets every Fedora packaging guideline, etc, until committing to the upstream repository, so we all get to wait for all of the cool shit that's happening.
Please note that we're talking about pre-release versions of Firefox in a pre-release version of Fedora anyway, so a lot of churn is to be expected. We're almost certainly going to have to temporarily disable and reenable a lot of other system libs during the beta cycles to get builds out the door, just like we always do in rawhide. Not that I can guarantee that the release version will have all the above system libs enabled, but we'll know a lot more closer to FF4 and F15 release time.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/30/2010 05:19 AM, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 06:37:33PM +0900, Takanori MATSUURA wrote:
If someone implement --enable-system-libvpx --enable-system-vorbis --enable-system-ogg --enable-system-theora into the mozilla source, we can easily remove source for the libraries. And Fedora will be happy. :-)
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.
I personally don't care what we call it. I'm not going to start breaking funny cat videos just to meet packaging ideals on a deadline. I'd rather deal with all you guys complaining on fedora-devel and in fesco tickets than the influx of bugs if I started breaking shit. It's bad enough that there are more bugs than we can handle. Besides, Mozilla has a good track record of allowing system libs after things settle down, and I have no doubt that we'll get these at some point.
From Mozilla's perspective, they could:
- Do what they are doing now, temporarily not allow a few new system
libs, waiting until they get banged into shape and *then* enable system libs (down the road). 2. Bang on the code in private and wait until it meets every Fedora packaging guideline, etc, until committing to the upstream repository, so we all get to wait for all of the cool shit that's happening.
Please note that we're talking about pre-release versions of Firefox in a pre-release version of Fedora anyway, so a lot of churn is to be expected. We're almost certainly going to have to temporarily disable and reenable a lot of other system libs during the beta cycles to get builds out the door, just like we always do in rawhide. Not that I can guarantee that the release version will have all the above system libs enabled, but we'll know a lot more closer to FF4 and F15 release time.
I yelled pretty loudly when Fedora first packaged libvpx because fedora took a _known vulnerable_ version which Mozilla and opera were patching around but where the upstream hadn't yet merged the fixes.
Things are more mature now but there are still somewhat scary fixes happening, at least with the platform dependant code: https://review.webmproject.org/#change,603
Mozilla being a vector for the widescale exploitation would be terrible for their image— and also terrible for Fedora's, we really don't want to create our own version of the debian openssl rng bug. There really is a common interest here and the folks on the Mozilla side are better informed about the risks.
The patches mozilla is carrying are visible as files in the respective directories here: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/media/
I'd suggest that fedora folks interested in the bundling help by making sure that the applicable fixes make it upstream. Even if Fedora were to ditch the trademarks you couldn't escape doing this work.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 01:29:38PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I yelled pretty loudly when Fedora first packaged libvpx because fedora took a _known vulnerable_ version which Mozilla and opera were patching around but where the upstream hadn't yet merged the fixes.
Things are more mature now but there are still somewhat scary fixes happening, at least with the platform dependant code: https://review.webmproject.org/#change,603
Mozilla being a vector for the widescale exploitation would be terrible for their image— and also terrible for Fedora's, we really don't want to create our own version of the debian openssl rng bug. There really is a common interest here and the folks on the Mozilla side are better informed about the risks.
The patches mozilla is carrying are visible as files in the respective directories here: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/media/
I'd suggest that fedora folks interested in the bundling help by making sure that the applicable fixes make it upstream. Even if Fedora were to ditch the trademarks you couldn't escape doing this work.
Note that even without unbundling we have to do this work anyway -- but we have to do it (or at least verify that it's done) twice, once in libvpx and once in firefox. It sounds from your post that one problem is that the libvpx maintainer has a volatile code base with multiple sources to pull code from but is only paying attention to a subset of those.
-Toshio
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 02:22:36PM -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 01:29:38PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I yelled pretty loudly when Fedora first packaged libvpx because fedora took a _known vulnerable_ version which Mozilla and opera were patching around but where the upstream hadn't yet merged the fixes.
I don't see a note from you on the review bug, so I can continue to read about this, where did you yell?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=593879
-Toshio
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 02:22:36PM -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 01:29:38PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I yelled pretty loudly when Fedora first packaged libvpx because fedora took a _known vulnerable_ version which Mozilla and opera were patching around but where the upstream hadn't yet merged the fixes.
I don't see a note from you on the review bug, so I can continue to read about this, where did you yell?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=599147 and http://www.mail-archive.com/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/msg08138.html
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I yelled pretty loudly when Fedora first packaged libvpx because fedora took a _known vulnerable_ version which Mozilla and opera were patching around but where the upstream hadn't yet merged the fixes.
Things are more mature now but there are still somewhat scary fixes happening, at least with the platform dependant code: https://review.webmproject.org/#change,603
Mozilla being a vector for the widescale exploitation would be terrible for their image— and also terrible for Fedora's, we really don't want to create our own version of the debian openssl rng bug.
If libvpx is vulnerable, this MUST be fixed in our system version, otherwise ALL THE OTHER SOFTWARE WE SHIP using libvpx can be exploited! Fixing only the Mozilla stack does NOT solve the problem. Fixing the system library does, for EVERYONE, INCLUDING Firefox.
There really is a common interest here and the folks on the Mozilla side are better informed about the risks.
There is NO common interest. Our interest is to have ONE copy of the library (for the ENTIRE distribution) in which to apply security fixes.
The patches mozilla is carrying are visible as files in the respective directories here: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/media/
I'd suggest that fedora folks interested in the bundling help by making sure that the applicable fixes make it upstream. Even if Fedora were to ditch the trademarks you couldn't escape doing this work.
Sure we could. We'd just apply the patches to our libvpx package. That's what SRPMs are for.
Kevin Kofler
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:09:32AM -0700, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Looking at how rigorous new packages with bundled libs are fought we should really stop shipping firefox and start shipping Iceweasel.
I personally don't care what we call it.
Great.
I'm not going to start breaking funny cat videos just to meet packaging ideals on a deadline. I'd rather deal with all you guys complaining on fedora-devel and in fesco tickets than the influx of bugs if I started breaking shit. It's bad enough that there are more bugs than we can handle.
I'm not worried too much about a library being system or not. What I'm worried about is twofold:
1. Established packagers of high-profile packages get to do what they want with fedora packages while small-scale packagers of low-profile packages get told to bugger off if they cannot make their packages use system libs (zsync anyone?).
Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I can see none of the chosen ff comitters has actually asked fesco to grant an exception for libvpx, right? Now that the topic has come up there is talk in the ticket that the exception should be granted but that cannot feel right to anyone, can it?
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.
(And yes - I am aware that the other relevant floss-browser is much worse than mozilla wrt. bundling libs and using forked libs).
Besides, Mozilla has a good track record of allowing system libs after things settle down, and I have no doubt that we'll get these at some point.
This is not what the bug report I quoted says. Unless "Sorry, no." has a connotation of "but we'll revisit once dust has settled" that I'm just not aware of as a non native speaker.
Also the bug is not about _using_ the system lib it's just about allowing the user to build against it.
From Mozilla's perspective, they could:
- Do what they are doing now, temporarily not allow a few new
system libs, waiting until they get banged into shape and *then* enable system libs (down the road). 2. Bang on the code in private and wait until it meets every Fedora packaging guideline, etc, until committing to the upstream repository, so we all get to wait for all of the cool shit that's happening.
3. Add the patch to their system that would allow people to build against a system lib.
Sven Lankes wrote:
I'm not worried too much about a library being system or not. What I'm worried about is twofold:
- Established packagers of high-profile packages get to do what they want with fedora packages while small-scale packagers of low-profile packages get told to bugger off if they cannot make their packages use system libs (zsync anyone?).
+1
I really don't see why we keep exempting Firefox from our rules.
Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I can see none of the chosen ff comitters has actually asked fesco to grant an exception for libvpx, right? Now that the topic has come up there is talk in the ticket that the exception should be granted but that cannot feel right to anyone, can it?
And indeed, the fact that this is only being brought to the responsible committee (FESCo) after the fact is also unacceptable.
- 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.
Indeed, Firefox is effectively non-Free for Fedora, since we're being kept hostage of their patch approval processes, and since our maintainer has a conflict of interest and values Mozilla's policies above Fedora's.
(And yes - I am aware that the other relevant floss-browser is much worse than mozilla wrt. bundling libs and using forked libs).
(Hey, don't insinuate that Konqueror is irrelevant!)
Chromium is not in Fedora for exactly that reason. Why does Firefox get a free pass?
Also the bug is not about _using_ the system lib it's just about allowing the user to build against it.
Indeed. And this is a core part of freedom.
Plus, the end user isn't going to build Firefox himself. It's going to be built by a packager who knows what he's doing when building against the system library, and the distribution also controls that library. So I really don't see why Mozilla refuses to allow it.
From Mozilla's perspective, they could:
- Do what they are doing now, temporarily not allow a few new
system libs, waiting until they get banged into shape and *then* enable system libs (down the road). 2. Bang on the code in private and wait until it meets every Fedora packaging guideline, etc, until committing to the upstream repository, so we all get to wait for all of the cool shit that's happening.
- Add the patch to their system that would allow people to build
against a system lib.
+1
Kevin Kofler
On 09/30/2010 08:54 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
- 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=advanced&bug_status...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_status...
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.
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.
2010/10/4 Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com:
Please look at this list:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_status...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_status...
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.
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.
2010/10/4 Martin Stransky stransky@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.
On 10/04/2010 10:50 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
2010/10/4 Martin Stranskystransky@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.
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.
Sorry but we can't fix everything in the current line. There's just disagreement about priorities between us.
2010/10/4 Martin Stransky stransky@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).
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
2010/10/4 Martin Stransky stransky@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
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-390@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
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=dorem&remaction=run&namedcmd=all%20NEW%20abrt% 20crashes&sharer_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
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Matej Cepl mcepl@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=dorem&remaction=run&namedcmd=all%20NEW%20abrt% 20crashes&sharer_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
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Brandon Lozza brandon@pwnage.ca wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Matej Cepl mcepl@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=dorem&remaction=run&namedcmd=all%20NEW%20abrt% 20crashes&sharer_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.
2010/10/4 Matej Cepl mcepl@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.
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
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Matej Cepl mcepl@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.
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
On 10/04/2010 02:52 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
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.
Correct, similar to Mozilla, Fedora applies trademarks introduce restrictions to freedom through the backdoor.
It's really sad esp. Fedora's leadership doesn't comprehend the harm, these trademark games in Fedora are to Fedora.
Ralf
On 10/04/2010 06:38 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/04/2010 02:52 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
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.
Correct, similar to Mozilla, Fedora applies trademarks introduce restrictions to freedom through the backdoor.
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
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@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.
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
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@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?
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
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@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)
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@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.
On 10/04/2010 03:34 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundarammetherid@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
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn dennisml@conversis.de wrote:
On 10/04/2010 03:34 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundarammetherid@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
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.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM, 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.
Free software can require that you can change the name for any modifications you make and it still qualifies as free software. If you are in doubt and want to ask FSF, go ahead. Before you continue with this discussion, I strongly suggest you do that.
Rahul
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM, 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.
Free software can require that you can change the name for any modifications you make and it still qualifies as free software. If you are in doubt and want to ask FSF, go ahead. Before you continue with this discussion, I strongly suggest you do that.
Rahul
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I've already asked Richard Stallman and I am awaiting his reply but let's just go through a thought exercise.
Let's say I recompile Firefox and make a bunch of my own changes and REFUSE to change the name. How long do you think it'll take for Mozilla's lawyers to start threatening me with trademark lawsuits?
Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual property with specific restrictions on what you're allowed to do with it. This is the same as what ID software does with its games. You can have the source code for Wolfenstein and Enemy Territory, but that's just the code. The code is free software. The name, the artwork, the graphics, music and story are all under copyright and are not licensed to everyone for distribution. This is the same with Firefox, the code is free, but the name, the graphics are copyright and are the intellectual property of MoFo, and not anyone else. They say you can't distribute modified binaries. How do you get Freedom #3 then? If they used GPLv3, they would be required to license their trademarks to us and THEN it would be free software.
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 exact SAME firefox if we compiled firefox with the compile time flag that removes branding. The branding is kept, i'm told, simply to attract users. Leaving a piece of poorly maintained software to attract users is silly. And if you or anyone else think Iceweasel is somehow inferior, you need your brain checked. You don't understand logic.
Firefox, is ONLY free software when it does not include the intellectual property that is non free.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Brandon Lozza brandon@pwnage.ca wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM, 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.
Free software can require that you can change the name for any modifications you make and it still qualifies as free software. If you are in doubt and want to ask FSF, go ahead. Before you continue with this discussion, I strongly suggest you do that.
Rahul
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I've already asked Richard Stallman and I am awaiting his reply but let's just go through a thought exercise.
Let's say I recompile Firefox and make a bunch of my own changes and REFUSE to change the name.
Your are using a trademark without an explicit agreement from the trademark owner.
They have invested a lot in there brand, and it is their right to protect it the way they want.
The software IS NOT coupled to the brand, you can just remove it, and you are ALLOWED to do so.
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:24:30 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote:
Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual property with specific restrictions on what you're allowed to do with it.
Did you use the term "intellectual property" in your query to Richard too? :-) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
Michal
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Michal Schmidt mschmidt@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:24:30 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote:
Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual property with specific restrictions on what you're allowed to do with it.
Did you use the term "intellectual property" in your query to Richard too? :-) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
Michal
devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Just to those with thick skulls
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:35 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Michal Schmidt mschmidt@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:24:30 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote:
Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual property with specific restrictions on what you're allowed to do with it.
Did you use the term "intellectual property" in your query to Richard too? :-) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
Michal
devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Just to those with thick skulls
You're out of line. please stop.
-sv
On 10/04/2010 11:35 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Michal Schmidt mschmidt@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:24:30 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote:
Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual property with specific restrictions on what you're allowed to do with it.
Did you use the term "intellectual property" in your query to Richard too? :-) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
Michal
Just to those with thick skulls
This is well beyond reasonable behavior for this mailing list. Remember, "be excellent to each other." You need to stop now since you can't remain civil.
Brandon Lozza wrote:
Let's say I recompile Firefox and make a bunch of my own changes and REFUSE to change the name. How long do you think it'll take for Mozilla's lawyers to start threatening me with trademark lawsuits?
In that case, Red Hat lawyers should be visiting you soon.
Fedora is a trademark of... Red Hat. :)
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com wrote:
Brandon Lozza wrote:
Let's say I recompile Firefox and make a bunch of my own changes and REFUSE to change the name. How long do you think it'll take for Mozilla's lawyers to start threatening me with trademark lawsuits?
In that case, Red Hat lawyers should be visiting you soon.
Fedora is a trademark of... Red Hat. :)
devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Not in Canada, actually :P
either trademark
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 09:24, Brandon Lozza brandon@pwnage.ca wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@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.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Brandon Lozza brandon@pwnage.ca wrote:
Imagine if Linus forbid people from calling their OS Linux if they didn't use the binaries provided by him.
As the trademark owner it is his right to do so, but that alone does not make Linux unfree.
You are confusing trademarks and copyright.
Repeating your statement 1000x times does not make it correct.
I can claim that 1+1 = 5 ... no matter how often I repeat the statement it remains wrong.
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. 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'.
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
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@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."
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
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.
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
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
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.
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 04:55:46PM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
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.
We have a long history of technical requirements actually. In fedora.us we even had re-reviews when packages were updated.
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.
Well, there's also the security, bugfix, and encouraging forking issues that are listed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
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
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.
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
Absolutely. I apologise if you took offence Toshi. My rant was in by no means directed at you, but the subject at hand. Reading back it looks like I have targeted you unfairly - not my intention. On 10/07/2010 02:51 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
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.
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
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
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 10:59:08 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum nathaniel@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.
On 10/06/2010 12:12 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 10:59:08 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum nathaniel@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
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:29:59 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum nathaniel@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.
On 10/06/2010 12:41 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:29:59 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum nathaniel@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.
Yup. I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. Just as long as we agree that Mozilla's policy and Fedora's policy are roughly the same and that this policy is sensible. Whether Mozilla's refusal to accept patches is sensible is another matter...
Nathaniel
Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III bruno@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.
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:25:27 -0500, Chris Adams cmadams@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III bruno@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.
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
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 <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.
On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson awilliam@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.
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 brandon@pwnage.ca wrote:
On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson awilliam@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.
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
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
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
Perhaps the Upstream we should be working with instead should be Debian (Iceweasel)?
I'm compiling Iceweasel right now and i'm going to attempt to plug it into the system xulrunner, lol. It's the same version anyways so I don't see why the branding being changed will introduce new bugs and I'm not using debians security patches. I'll update on this and if it works i'll look into modifying the firefox spec to use this instead. However i'm kind of a noob at packaging and probably can't maintain this forever.
On 10/07/2010 08:36 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On 10/6/10, Adam Williamsonawilliam@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.
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.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Michal Schmidt mschmidt@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).
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@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.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Brandon Lozza brandon@pwnage.ca wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@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.
drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Brandon Lozza brandon@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
On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 08:34 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@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.)
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson awilliam@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: brandon@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: rms@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 rms@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 rms@gnu.org designates 140.186.70.10 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rms@gnu.org Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from rms@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 rms@gnu.org To: Brandon Lozza brandon@pwnage.ca In-reply-to: AANLkTi=wHj55xTDWFpFxyLzUUCcYrgqdJwedLkDSv2Lx@mail.gmail.com (message from Brandon Lozza on Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:26:34 -0400) Subject: Re: Trademarks make software nonfree? Reply-to: rms@gnu.org References: AANLkTi=wHj55xTDWFpFxyLzUUCcYrgqdJwedLkDSv2Lx@mail.gmail.com Message-Id: E1P34FB-0003dw-0z@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.
On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 11:42 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson awilliam@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 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
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.
-----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.
- -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
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.
-----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
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.
Because I don't have the time to sit on mailing lists 24/7.
Kevin Kofler
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 01:39 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
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.
Because I don't have the time to sit on mailing lists 24/7.
I guess the logical conclusion, given your output level, is that you have time to write email but not read it.
- ajax
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Adam Jackson ajax@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 01:39 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
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.
Because I don't have the time to sit on mailing lists 24/7.
I guess the logical conclusion, given your output level, is that you have time to write email but not read it.
- ajax
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Given his output level we'll soon have KDE 4.5 in F13, hes a busy individual. I believe it was my mention of Iceweasel in irc that brought this to his attention.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Brandon Lozza brandon@pwnage.ca wrote:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson awilliam@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.
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 awilliam@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
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 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
-----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
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
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
I agree and this is exactly how the argument is going. People in FESCo have made it clear via their meeting notes that the Firefox branding is more important than following package guidelines.
I liked what Spot had to say about the whole thing.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:38:29 -0400, Brandon Lozza brandon@pwnage.ca wrote:
I agree and this is exactly how the argument is going. People in FESCo have made it clear via their meeting notes that the Firefox branding is more important than following package guidelines.
I'd encourage people who are interested in FESCO's views to read the log. The summary above is not what I took away from the discussion.
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 09:23 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@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
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@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.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Brandon Lozza brandon@pwnage.ca wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@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
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.
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
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@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.
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
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@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.
On Monday, October 04, 2010 03:31:24 pm Rahul Sundaram wrote:
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.
Maybe go same way as LibreOffice - join forces? LibreFox? And as we don't need to fork it completely - just make it more Linux distributions friendly... But still I think trying to convince MoFo to be more friendly is the better way. Linux is minority for them but still I think loosing Debian, Fedora, RHEL (and probably the whole Linux market) is too much for them.
But I'm in process of switching from Firefox to Konqueror and Rekonq now (try #1000;-), so I try to not care unless Firefox fixes don't break WebKit (and WebKit is in bad situation because of Google and Apple too :(. So probably I move to Konqueror - practically the only really open web browser implementation.
Jaroslav
Rahul
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…
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Florent Le Coz louiz@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.
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
On 10/6/10, Matej Cepl mcepl@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.
* 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
On 10/06/2010 10:08 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On 10/6/10, Matej Cepl mcepl@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 Jones wrote:
On 10/06/2010 10:08 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On 10/6/10, Matej Cepl mcepl@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
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 06:22:23PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram 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.
That's reasonable. Fedora makes it easy for "downstream" distributions to do that. And, as I understand it, so does Mozilla.
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
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
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 09:57 +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
On 09/30/2010 08:54 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
- 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=advanced&bug_status...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_status...
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
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 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 13:40 +0000, 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.
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 13:40 +0000, 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 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Good point. But I vaguely recall a few years (is it so long already?) when the html5 thing was starting there was a bug in mozilla's bugzilla to allow use of system libvorbis (or maybe some other html5 video related one) with the same reaction, but after all, it might be the same person...
Anyway, don't feel any weight in my statement, it's just remnants of past frustration with having to use rpath for mozplugins (and thus rebuild for every firefox release, even though the api/abi remained same) softly reinforced by the fact that now you don't need rpath, 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...)
Plus, I believe I said it a few months (maybe years) back, but I don't like that mozilla decided to use the codecs directly (instead of using platform dependent framework like gstreamer), not to mention they bundle their own patched versions...
</slight rant>
Anyway, I hope you manage to solve this problem soon :)
Martin
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
Christopher Aillon wrote:
I personally don't care what we call it. I'm not going to start breaking funny cat videos
You shouldn't break the videos, you should apply the Debian patch to use the system libvpx, then the videos will just work.
just to meet packaging ideals on a deadline. I'd rather deal with all you guys complaining on fedora-devel and in fesco tickets than the influx of bugs if I started breaking shit. It's bad enough that there are more bugs than we can handle.
Then you should be replaced by a maintainer who actually cares about our packaging guidelines.
Besides, Mozilla has a good track record of allowing system libs after things settle down, and I have no doubt that we'll get these at some point.
That's too late. The libraries MUST NEVER be bundled, at NO point in time.
From Mozilla's perspective, they could:
- Do what they are doing now, temporarily not allow a few new system
libs, waiting until they get banged into shape and *then* enable system libs (down the road). 2. Bang on the code in private and wait until it meets every Fedora packaging guideline, etc, until committing to the upstream repository, so we all get to wait for all of the cool shit that's happening.
3. Just allow distributors to build against the system libraries and trust them to know what they're doing!
They're the ONLY upstream which makes it such a PITA to ship their project.
Please note that we're talking about pre-release versions of Firefox in a pre-release version of Fedora anyway, so a lot of churn is to be expected. We're almost certainly going to have to temporarily disable and reenable a lot of other system libs during the beta cycles to get builds out the door, just like we always do in rawhide.
This is not acceptable.
Not that I can guarantee that the release version will have all the above system libs enabled, but we'll know a lot more closer to FF4 and F15 release time.
And neither is this.
We have policies for a reason, Firefox must stop being "special" and start following the same rules as everyone else.
Kevin Kofler
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.
Kevin Kofler
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
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@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
On 5 October 2010 15:51, Brandon Lozza brandon@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.
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
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@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.
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
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
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
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
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.
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@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.
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 6:56:18 PM, Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@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)
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.
Gregory,
<Foghorn Leghorn voice> Ah say suh... how dare you bring facts to the table! That equine was only a few weeks dead, and I am certain - I said certain - that it would eventually notice the floggin'! </Foghorn Leghorn voice>
Just think of all those wasted weeks of ranting where no one else bothered to check the _assumptions_ made by the "it must be the trademarks causing the problem" folks.
I think the appropriate term is "Game, Set and Match". Al
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
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 01:42:21 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
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.
You are mixing up the bundling of libvpx and the bundling of other media libraries here. Firefox bundles other items as well, which is I think what Gregory was talking about as iceweasel also bundles them.
kevin
Kevin Kofler wrote on 14.10.2010 00:36:
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).
If you run a 's/, in addition to being stupid by itself,//' over that: Yes, sure.
And besides, it's not that we want Iceweasel, it's that we DO NOT WANT Firefox since it does not follow Fedora policies.
As it's obvious from the discussion: There are other "we" in Fedora that think having Firefox is wise.
Please note that I actually don't feel myself as being a part of either "we" here. Both sides afaics have good points. The main reason why I raised my voice: I don't see a real reason why Fedora has to pick a position for the repository (see next para)
Having both would not actually solve any problem.
I tend to disagree, as including both Iceweasel and Icedove in addition to Firefox and Thunderbird gives users, admins and especially those that maintain a remix the option to easily chose the solution that suites their needs best.
Cu knurd
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 13:11 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I tend to disagree, as including both Iceweasel and Icedove in addition to Firefox and Thunderbird gives users, admins and especially those that maintain a remix the option to easily chose the solution that suites their needs best.
FWIW, there is precedent in {fedora,generic}-{release,logos,...}.
Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 13:11 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I tend to disagree, as including both Iceweasel and Icedove in addition to Firefox and Thunderbird gives users, admins and especially those that maintain a remix the option to easily chose the solution that suites their needs best.
FWIW, there is precedent in {fedora,generic}-{release,logos,...}.
The issue is that Firefox is not compliant with Fedora guidelines and as such has no business being in Fedora. Adding another package Y cannot solve the problem of package X not being compliant with Fedora guidelines, only removing package X can.
Kevin Kofler
-
Adam Jackson -
Adam Williamson -
Al Dunsmuir -
Andre Robatino -
Brandon Lozza -
Brendan Jones -
Bruno Wolff III -
Chris Adams -
Christopher Aillon -
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn -
drago01 -
Emmanuel Seyman -
Florent Le Coz -
Gregory Maxwell -
Jaroslav Reznik -
Jesse Keating -
Kevin Fenzi -
Kevin Kofler -
Martin Sourada -
Martin Stransky -
Matej Cepl -
Matt McCutchen -
Matthew Miller -
Michael Cronenworth -
Michal Schmidt -
Nathaniel McCallum -
Peter Jones -
Peter Lemenkov -
Przemek Klosowski -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
Richard Hughes -
Seth Vidal -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Sven Lankes -
Takanori MATSUURA -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Tomas Mraz -
Toshio Kuratomi