On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Felix Schwarz
<felix.schwarz@oss.schwarz.eu> wrote:
>
> I'm concerned about bz 579023 [1] which is a Thunderbird crasher bug.
> This bug was fixed upstream [2] for about 3-4 weeks. I ran a thunderbird
> koji *build version [3] with an adapted version of that patch since then
> without any problems. Other users confirmed that this patch fixes their
> problems as well.
>
> The Fedora bug has a number of duplicates with quite some number of cc'd
> users so I guess a lot of people experiencing these crashes.

And probably a lot of people aren't.

> However it is still not fixed in Thunderbird F-12 CVS. Can you please
> push the fix to CVS and push builds to testing/stable?

Why isn't Mozilla releasing a new version that contains the fix?

And even if the Fedora Thunderbird maintainer decides to push a
patched package to F-12, there's no way it should be pushed directly
to stable.

--
Jeff Ollie
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Martin Stransky <stransky@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/23/2010 09:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 04/23/2010 09:03 AM, Martin Stransky wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because
>>> of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla
>>> package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'.
>>
>> Thanks for providing evidence of how trademarks are being applied to
>> void the benefits of "open source".
>>
>> The obvious logical consequences of what you say would be
>> * either to remove the packages you are referring to from Fedora because
>> they are effectively unmaintainable.
>>
>> * or to remove the trademarks and re-brand the packages.
>>
>> /me ducks and hides for cover.
>
> No, you get it wrong. It's about cooperation, we work with upstream to
> release one valid product. See the upstream bug, the fix may be included
> in next security update.

...*may be included* in next security update.

Well, Ralf is right. That situation is just sick. To have a patch that
fixes a crashing application but it can't be applied, because of
Trademark/Branding problems. And even worse, that the app has to crash
for *everyone* to get it faster.

But i guess it's better i shut up, since i don't use Mozilla products.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 09:47:26 +0200,
> *Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
>>
>> Those packages are also sometimes not compliant with Fedora policies such as
>> usage of system libraries because any patches to use a system library need
>> trademark approval. This is also just unacceptable. See e.g. the Hunspell
>> fiasco:
>
> Isn't this a FESCO issue? Maybe it is time to reopen this issue?
>
> I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit
> to Fedora.

By shipping software using names known to users coming from other OSes?

Btw. the fedora trademark guidelines aren't less restrictive either.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@redhat.com> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes:
>> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 12:03:28 -0400,
>> * Tom Lane <tgl@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Wouldn't it be sensible to approach the Mozilla folk about getting them
>>> to relax their requirements so that sane packaging is possible? *ISTM
>>> that this must be a problem for other distros too.
>
>> I though we did that several years ago. I wasn't a packager at that time,
>> so I didn't follow what was happening closely.
>
> Well, if we say to them "either you fix this licensing problem or your
> trademarks will disappear from Fedora", it might get their attention.
> Especially if we can get Debian and some other distros to tell them the
> same.

Well, since Debian already has Iceweasel, Mozilla obviously don't care.

IMO, we should go the Debian way.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Thomas Janssen
<thomasj@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes:
>>> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 12:03:28 -0400,
>>> * Tom Lane <tgl@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Wouldn't it be sensible to approach the Mozilla folk about getting them
>>>> to relax their requirements so that sane packaging is possible? *ISTM
>>>> that this must be a problem for other distros too.
>>
>>> I though we did that several years ago. I wasn't a packager at that time,
>>> so I didn't follow what was happening closely.
>>
>> Well, if we say to them "either you fix this licensing problem or your
>> trademarks will disappear from Fedora", it might get their attention.
>> Especially if we can get Debian and some other distros to tell them the
>> same.
>
> Well, since Debian already has Iceweasel, Mozilla obviously don't care.
>
> IMO, we should go the Debian way.

Whoops, sorry for the PM Bruno and Kevin, i did just click on reply to
all. Forgot to check for a cc.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> They also care very little about the needs of distros and it took years for
> some of the system libs to get used rather than bundled, for things like
> system icons getting adopted etc. They still suck in the system integration
> domain in many ways, e.g. openSUSE's KDE integration patches have yet to be
> merged, and of course our maintainers refuse to merge openSUSE's patches due
> to the usual trademark concerns (which openSUSE doesn't seem to be concerned
> about, they just ship those patches in branded packages, so either Mozilla
> approved them, which means we can ship them too, or they just didn't care,
> so why should we?).

What really strikes me here is that we're not even talking about
adding random downstream patches, but an upstream one.


--
Gianluca Sforna

http://morefedora.blogspot.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gianlucasforna
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Quentin Armitage
<Quentin@armitage.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 12:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 13:37:11 -0400,
>> * Matthias Clasen <mclasen@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> >
>> > > I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit
>> > > to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should
>> > > be breaking our rules to help them.
>> >
>> >
>> > I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visibility and
>> > importance of the Firefox and Fedora brands... nobody knows what Fedora
>> > is, while most computer users will have at least heard about Firefox.
>>
>> Yeah, but "most computer users" isn't relevant. The question is about what
>> is relevant to Fedora users. Changing the name of Firefox will have little
>> affect on them since it is installed as the default web browser. Being able
>> to fix bugs in a timely manner on the other hand, is going to have a
>> significant affect on them.
> Not a nice idea, but, at least as a temporary workaround, could Fedora
> ship both a Firefox and an Iceweasel; Firefox complying with the
> trademark rules, and Iceweasel working as users would want it.
>
> Could the Fedora shipped Firefox even have a home page that says "Have
> you tried Iceweasel ..."? And bugs reported against Firefox could be
> closed with "Fixed in Iceweasel".

That is nonsense ... it just creates confusion and maintenance overhead.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Mail Lists <lists@sapience.com> wrote:
> On 04/25/2010 07:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> The upstream version has that bug too, they just don't care about it enough
>> to release a fixed version in a timely manner.
>
>
> *OH - FYI, I am running upstream and I don't have that problem ... can
> disconnect the network all i want .. no crash.

The fedora build works fine for me too.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/26/2010 02:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Well, may-be FESCO should decide upon on whether the FSF's
>> "freedom 3" [1] is a inclusion/exclusion criterion for packages in Fedora.
>>
>> Ralf
>>
>> [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>>
>
> It is (except for firmware) but before you wave it around, *you will do
> well to ask FSF whether the Mozilla trademark guidelines violate it. *My
> understanding is that, they don't consider it a violation and yes, I
> have actually asked them.
>
> Rahul

May I ask whether anyone has the same crash occurring with Thunderbird
3.1b2? I have been running the nightlies for that version for months
without any problem - is the crash only occurring with version 3.0.x?
Rather than planning on breaking away from Mozilla perhaps when TB
releases 3.1 the issue will become a non-issue?

Just a thought!

--
mike c
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

2010/4/26 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com>:

> The Fedora Mozilla packages can be bug-fixed/patched. If Mozilla doesn't
> accept the patches upstream first, we would no longer have permission to
> use their trademarks, and would need to remove them when we did so.

You just said something like "yes we can, but Mozilla will deny" -
this is exactly what Ralf told us earlier.

> As to why we have not simply patched at will, and discarded the
> trademarks, well, I think that is ultimately up to FESCo and the
> Maintainer(s) to decide how we wish to operate in that manner.

It's not up to maintainer to decide whether to provide non-free
package in Fedora. And I don't see why we need to ask FESCo for
resolution of this (clearly visible for almost everyone) violation of
our guidelines.

> Personally, I feel that there is name-recognition value in the Mozilla
> trademarks, and we should make every effort to try to discuss a
> compromise with them to allow us a bit more flexibility while retaining
> the trademark use. Perhaps this is a discussion that could be opened
> with Luis Villa?

Rebranding can be a difficult task, but this task also can be easily
measured in man-hours, man-days or man-months, and this would be a
ultimate solution, while chatting with lawers can consume much more
time w/o success (nothing personal here).

--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel