On Wed 2008-06-11 11:28, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alessio Bolognino <themolok.ml@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com 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