On Wed 2008-06-11 11:28, Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alessio Bolognino > <themolok.ml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed 2008-06-11 18:05, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: > >> I've a small dumb question. > >> Why not use official branded version when there are many licensing > >> problems? According to KISS and Arch philosophy (use upstream apps and > >> not to patch unless necessary) this should be a good way. > > > > But what happens if we *have* to apply a patch for some reason (as we > > have to do, right now)? Should we change the package name? And if then > > we don't need that patch anymore because it's merged upstream, should we > > have to change back to the trademarked name? That sounds messy. > > If you want the official build, you are welcome to download it direct > from mozilla and install it. That, however, is not the one we > distribute - you have a choice, you don't have to use what we provide I was just trying to say that if we use the official branded version, then we can not apply a patch whenever we want, and that's bad; indeed I support the decision to distribute the not branded build. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to themolok@xxxxxxxxx Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB
Attachment:
pgpk7RdBwRBUx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
