On 2-Oct-06, at 1:39 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Backporting security fixes from newer releases is not really "extra"
in my mind. It'd be fixing stuff that isn't fixed elsewhere without
discussing it with us.
The argument for fixing upstream is that by taking a fix for a bug
that's unpatched upstr
To my knowledge, Debian isn't including "extra" security fixes over
and above what we're shipping. If they are, that would possibly be
considered an act of bad faith between downstream and upstream,
unless the security bug was Debian specific. This type of potential
"Firefox from foo is better
On 2-Oct-06, at 12:18 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi all,
There is maybe a way for debian to keep the name and use *a* logo.
Note
that it is not *the* logo, since firefox logo is non-free, but the
nuvola icon theme has an LGPL version of the firefox log
On 2-Oct-06, at 2:02 AM, Conrad Knauer wrote:
On 10/1/06, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-
policy.html
>
> One of the permitted changes is "Porting the software to
different operating systems"
I'm not sure that's wha
On 21-Sep-06, at 1:38 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
If this isn't possible, could we at least get a stay of execution?
Etch is going into deep freeze in less than a month. Would it be
possible to resolve this after the release?
I would think it makes much more sense to resolve this before you put
On 21-Sep-06, at 1:51 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
The other issue is if we can still distribute the firefox packages we
already have in sarge. If etch releases as scheduled we will still be
backporting security fixes into that version until Dec. 2007 (or as
long as it is remains possible). Etch will
Steve Langasek wrote:
Are the Debian logos and trademarks free?
No, the Debian logos are not free. This is considered a bug.
Since there's no way of making the logo free without losing control over
the mark, why not adopt a generic branding switch like we did? Its
non-trivial to do
James Andrewartha wrote:
As for your straw man about security bugs, what security bugs would
you be fixing with your own patches? If there are security bugs,
they should be fixed upstream, not in your own tree. We've had this
discussion repeatedly in the context of the security group, and we
Eric Dorland wrote:
severity 354622 important
thanks
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:01:01PM -0500, Mike Connor wrote:
Package: firefox
Version: 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.1-2
Severity: serious
Firefox (the name) is equally protected and
Package: firefox
Version: 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.1-2
Severity: serious
Firefox (the name) is equally protected and controlled by the same
trademark policy and legal requirements as the Firefox logo. You're
free to use any other name for the browser bits, but calling the browser
Firefox requires the s
10 matches
Mail list logo
