On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 23:29 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On 08/12/2010 10:59 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > > That's why I'm so frustrated that Fedora seems to be committed > > to keeping the Mozilla trademarks, which moot any discussion of whether > > to deviate for those packages. But this is only my opinion. Fedora is > > welcome to set its own course, and I am welcome to fork (in theory at > > least). > > You're making an assumption here that it's the trademarks that prevent > any deviation from upstream, when in fact the maintainer has stated many > times that regardless of trademarks, he would not deviate from upstream > given the sensitivity of a software suite that has to connect to the > wild wild web. The maintenance burden of upstream deviation is greater > than the maintainer would like to undertake, as is the risk of security > issues and stability. I am aware of that. But FESCo has the authority to override the maintainer, and in their recent discussion of the SELinux patch, they decided not to move forward on the basis of the trademarks: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-08-03/fesco.2010-08-03-19.30.log.html#l-66 Maybe the maintenance burden alone would also be enough to block further consideration of the patch, but there is no way to tell that from their discussion. -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
