Re: j'ai tout loupé moi ;-(

Il ne faut pas fixer les bugs en dehors de mozilla, c'est mal :

The argument for fixing upstream is that by taking a fix for a bug
that's unpatched upstream, you will call attention to that potential
exploit, and thus put non-Debian users at risk. The problem is
exponentially worse if we don't know the issue exists and thus don't
know we need to fix it. If that's not malicious, its at least
irresponsible, in my opinion.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622;msg=(...)

Ce qui était vrai avant ne l'est plus :

> Because Gerv is not responsible anymore for the trademark permissions
> and approvals, that means any agreements reached with him are null and
> void?
>
Not necessarily, just saying I don't see a need to consult him,
especially if something he thought was ok (splitting logos from
wordmark) has been confirmed to not be.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622;msg=(...)

aujourd'hui vos avez le droit, demain peut être pas :

> Given your subsequent comments indicating that the Mozilla Foundation
> reserves the right to revoke trademark grants for released versions of
> Debian, I don't see that we have any choice but to discontinue our use of
> the marks.
>
This is getting into theoretical games, of course, but if a released
version was found to be below an acceptable standard, we would be
required to take action to defend the mark, or risk losing our ability
to defend it. We are not going to give Debian carte blanche and deny
ourselves a possible recourse if something goes sour. That would only
make sense if there was little value in defending the mark.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622;msg=(...)

Je me moque que vous ne travaillez pas avec des patchs indivuels, je ne veux pas d'un diff entier :

> The diff.gz of the source package completely outlines the changes
> we've made in a fairly monolithic diff. If you strip out the
> regeneration of the configure file and all the debian files the diff
> is fairly small. I'm not sure what you would find objectionable,
> almost any patches we apply are from your bugzilla and have already
> been reviewed, or are minor integration or portability patches.

There's changes for default font style, window sizes, a patch to a
file that shouldn't need patching in 1.5 (since it was fixed in our
CVS three months before we shipped 1.5) and a few other things, just
from a skim.

>> If you do have this set of patches (a question which you didn't
>> bother
>> to answer) a link would be greatly appreciated so I can get them into
>> our bugzilla and get the right sets of eyes on the code.
>> Regardless of
>> whether we're going to circle around on the logo issue, if you
>> intend to
>> continue using the mark, you need to do that ASAP.
>
> I don't appreciate the accusatory tone you've taken there. I don't
> maintain the changes as patches, but inside a Subversion repository
> that contains a complete history of my (and co-maintainer Mike
> Hommey's) changes. It's not publicly available, because it's on my
> desktop machine for size and speed reasons, but I can make a copy
> available to you if you would like.

I'm getting questions from others asking why change X or Y was made,
and I don't have answers. My tone's a little tense because I had to
ask a few times to get a response. Having individual patches means
that if we say "this change is ok" we can put that patch somewhere
accessible to everyone and anyone can use that patch. Having
everyone do one-off patches means less sharing and more forking,
which is the opposite of what I consider open source's biggest strength.

Ici, il parle bien encore open source. A noter les problème GRAVE de patch débian : taille de police par défault, taille de la fenètre et patch d'un fichier qui n'existe puls dans le 1.5)

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622;msg=(...)



Et pour la fine bouche :

Nous voulons gérer les patchs acceptables :

> There are hundreds of distros out there, many who would like to
> distribute firefox. Are you going to monitor them all? I doubt it, so
> your process is already unfair.

Keep in mind that there are a set of things that can be modified
without approval, if you just build the stock browser and package it
up, the current policy does allow you to use the marks. If you want
to make additional changes, we need to approve those additional changes.

I hope to set up a framework for "approved patches" to stable
versions, so that if something doesn't make our freeze date, but
affects all/a subset of Linux distros, they can use the same patch
from an approved list. This will be an extension to the currently-
accepted modifications (i.e. if we approve a change for Fedora,
anyone can apply that patch to their distro package).

If someone wants to use the trademarks, and make additional changes,
they're in violation. It is our hope that this will rarely happen,
but if it does we will take the necessary action to preserve the
usefulness of the mark.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622;msg=(...)

Voila comme cela les gens pourront puiser à la source les informations et n'auront pas besoin de passer à travers ton filtre.
L'objectif final de mozilla est de 'controler' Firefox avec les patchs approuvés. Ce n'est pas _mon_ idée du libre, mais bon je ne représente que moi, ce n'est pas l'idée de Débian non plus (qui ne traine pas la patte mais qui ne comprends pas la position intégriste de mozilla sur Firefox