[arch-general] Can we use the "Firefox" name?

[Alessio Bolognino]

On Wed 2008-06-11 11:28, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alessio Bolognino
> <themolok.ml at 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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20080611/88d8e1a4/attachment.pgp>