| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marcion
Apprentice
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 158
Location: England
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hilarious Sooty picture by the way.
| Naib wrote: | | Debian want to add custom-patches (rather then waiting for them to be integrated into the next release) |
Hold on there, patching a package is what Linux Distros do, it is what Linux distros are for. Most distros patch every one of the major applications to be more integrated with their system. It is a good thing!
Even Gentoo (a 'meta-distro'), which leaves many packages vanilla-looking, still patches a large number of packages to make them work with portage or for other technical reasons.
If we say that Mozilla can prevent us from patching the code then it is a fast dive down the slippery slope, leading to something rather like the old Unix systems or indeed Windows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gergan Penkov
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 1464
Location: das kleinste Kuhdorf Deutschlands :)
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: |
Debian want to add custom-patches (rather then waiting for them to be integrated into the next release) IF they do that then the code that they are compiling is no longing the code that Mozilla assigns to the trademark and logo which is the firefox logo
ergo, the Mozilla foundation are well within their rights and are doing things correctly, Debian are being ass-hats
IF a patch that debian create (for their version) causes a gaping security hole, it is fair that Mozilla-Firefox gets the bad press for it? NO
As long as Debian keep feeding their patch's back to Mozilla and a fork doesn't occur then let it be |
Well I'll give you a simple instruction set to see how much mozilla cares about the QA and security, remove the following lines from the mozilla-firefox ebuild:
| Code: | # Apply our patches
cd ${S} || die "cd failed"
EPATCH_SUFFIX="patch" \
EPATCH_FORCE="yes" \
epatch ${WORKDIR}/patch
# Fix a compilation issue using the 32-bit userland with 64-bit kernel on
# PowerPC, because with that configuration, it detects a ppc64 system.
# -- hansmi, 2005-11-13
if use ppc && [[ "${PROFILE_ARCH}" == ppc64 ]]; then
sed -i -e "s#OS_TEST=\`uname -m\`\$#OS_TEST=${ARCH}#" \
${S}/configure
sed -i -e "s#OS_TEST :=.*uname -m.*\$#OS_TEST:=${ARCH}#" \
${S}/security/coreconf/arch.mk
fi
WANT_AUTOCONF="2.1" \
eautoreconf || die "failed running eautoreconf"
|
and re-digest, now go ahead and build your QA/secure firefox.
You'll not be able to do it, it is that simple (not to speak that if it is to be built in this magic way, it would not be possible to build any other package against it).
_________________
"I knew when an angel whispered into my ear,
You gotta get him away, yeah
Hey little bitch!
Be glad you finally walked away or you may have not lived another day."
Godsmack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marcion wrote: |
If we say that Mozilla can prevent us from patching the code then it is a fast dive down the slippery slope, leading to something rather like the old Unix systems or indeed Windows. |
Mozilla are not saying that Debian (or any other distro) cannot patch the codebase, what they are saying is IF you apply your own patchset you cannot use the registered trademark & logo since that only valid for firefox code released by Mozilla
IF debian patch the firefox code it is no longer the code that has a logo against now is it
so since we have assertained that this patched codebase is not "firefox" as what Mozilla have trademarked and put a logo against then how the Fuck can Debian expect to use the logo?
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gergan Penkov
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 1464
Location: das kleinste Kuhdorf Deutschlands :)
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
they (debian and ubuntu) do not use the logo, they use only the name and this seems to make the mozillas even more angry 
_________________
"I knew when an angel whispered into my ear,
You gotta get him away, yeah
Hey little bitch!
Be glad you finally walked away or you may have not lived another day."
Godsmack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
floffe
Guru
Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Posts: 414
Location: Linköping, Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The name is still trademarked... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abhay
Apprentice
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gergan Penkov wrote: | | Well I'll give you a simple instruction set to see how much mozilla cares about the QA and security, remove the following lines from the mozilla-firefox ebuild: |
You are not even building stuff in a normal environment. 32bit user land and 64bit kernel? How many users in this world run that kind of setup? If you are doing something weird with your setup...you are supposed to be responsible for the repercussions or failure to compile. You can't blame QA for that. Try going to mplayer with bugs and tell them you came from Gentoo...you will know... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abhay
Apprentice
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | Mozilla are not saying that Debian (or any other distro) cannot patch the codebase, what they are saying is IF you apply your own patchset you cannot use the registered trademark & logo since that only valid for firefox code released by Mozilla. |
Actually they don't want to restrict usage of branding either. They are just saying that show us the patches, let our QA be assured that what ever is applied to original code is up to the mark so that the quality associated with Firefox stays intact. As far as name and logo is concerned, they just want both of them to be used together or none at all. That is how branding works...you can't name a product something and use some other logo. If someone tomorrow starts distributing Debian with XYZ logo...will they allow it? I wonder... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gergan Penkov
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 1464
Location: das kleinste Kuhdorf Deutschlands :)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dleverton
Guru
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 517
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| abhay wrote: | | You are not even building stuff in a normal environment. 32bit user land and 64bit kernel? How many users in this world run that kind of setup? |
That's fairly normal on most 64-bit arches, AFAIK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gergan Penkov
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 1464
Location: das kleinste Kuhdorf Deutschlands :)
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| abhay wrote: | | Naib wrote: | | Mozilla are not saying that Debian (or any other distro) cannot patch the codebase, what they are saying is IF you apply your own patchset you cannot use the registered trademark & logo since that only valid for firefox code released by Mozilla. |
Actually they don't want to restrict usage of branding either. They are just saying that show us the patches, let our QA be assured that what ever is applied to original code is up to the mark so that the quality associated with Firefox stays intact. As far as name and logo is concerned, they just want both of them to be used together or none at all. That is how branding works...you can't name a product something and use some other logo. If someone tomorrow starts distributing Debian with XYZ logo...will they allow it? I wonder... |
How long was the gentoo official branding saga?
How many forum threads are there about firefox being extremely slow?
Now add this to the fact that firefox could not be compiled without patches.
And actual question is, do you want to wait a year in order to use reliably a browser, I for one do not want - that's why opensource exists in the first place, so I'd better use iceweasel and leave our, debian and other distribution mantainers to patch the thing without hassle and without the great mozilla foundation peaking behind their shoulder.
_________________
"I knew when an angel whispered into my ear,
You gotta get him away, yeah
Hey little bitch!
Be glad you finally walked away or you may have not lived another day."
Godsmack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abhay
Apprentice
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gergan Penkov wrote: | | And actual question is, do you want to wait a year in order to use reliably a browser, I for one do not want - that's why opensource exists in the first place, so I'd better use iceweasel and leave our, debian and other distribution mantainers to patch the thing without hassle and without the great mozilla foundation peaking behind their shoulder. |
I understand your point but you don't understand Mozilla's. Do you?
Yes you are right that it is essential for distro maintainers to patch the source but if Mozilla makes exception for distro developers then they loose their trademark claims in any future cases. It is unacceptable to them. You want them to loose all claims on their trademark?
Also as I said earlier, even if Mozilla tried to make an exception for Debian and fellow distros it will be unacceptable for Debian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marcion
Apprentice
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 158
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dleverton wrote: | | abhay wrote: | | You are not even building stuff in a normal environment. 32bit user land and 64bit kernel? How many users in this world run that kind of setup? |
That's fairly normal on most 64-bit arches, AFAIK. |
If you do not do this then you cannot have all the 32-bit only crap, i.e. Java, Flash, Win32codecs or whatever else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marcion
Apprentice
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 158
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: |
Mozilla are not saying that Debian (or any other distro) cannot patch the codebase, what they are saying is IF you apply your own patchset you cannot use the registered trademark & logo since that only valid for firefox code released by Mozilla |
Well, again almost all the most important packages in all the major distros are patched. So we call everything new names, that will get very confusing very fast.
However, maybe trademarks, like patents, do not fit into free/open-source software which uses Copyright as its native/default means of permission and protection. So if everyone acts the same way as Mozilla then we may have to rename everything once to non-trademarkable names.
BTW, in the UK, 'Firefox' the trademark is owned by some other company, does not mean we cannot use Firefoox the web browser.
Last edited by marcion on Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not saying that Mozilla are in the right for trademarking it in the first place
What I am saying is since it is trademarked they are in the right for what they are doing and Debian are just being childish
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3355
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
basically debian are spitting their dummy out because everyone doesn't act the same way that they do
_________________
https://otw20.com/ OTW20 The new place for off the wall chat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Carlo
Developer
Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 3356
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marcion wrote: | | However, maybe trademarks, like patents, do not fit into free/open-source software which uses Copyright as its native/default means of permission and protection. |
Wrong. It's about protecting a name. The software is and remains free.
| marcion wrote: | | So if everyone acts the same way as Mozilla then we may have to rename everything once to non-trademarkable names. |
Don't say so...  Guess what would happen, if you'd violate the Gentoo trademark. Even FOSS projects not holding a trademark consider name-grabbing as offensive and dislike (strongly) deviating, patched versions of their code within distro releases, as it comes back to them via bug reports and they don't have a clue what's going on then and naturally don't have an interest to support that. You're better off to give your fork a name in any case.
_________________
Please make sure that you have searched for an answer to a question after reading all the relevant docs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abhay
Apprentice
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marcion wrote: | | However, maybe trademarks, like patents, do not fit into free/open-source software which uses Copyright as its native/default means of permission and protection. So if everyone acts the same way as Mozilla then we may have to rename everything once to non-trademarkable names. |
I don't see two of the giants in Linux Distro world i.e. Fedora & Novell having any kind of problem with this thing. Its just Debian that want to be so picky about everything... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nklb
n00b
Joined: 27 Jun 2002
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't the firefox sourcecode released under the GPL (If it's a different licence like BSD, then my argument doesn't hold up)
If so, wouldn't the fact that their trademarked term "firefox" appears IN the source code, under the GPL, invalidate the fact that it is "trademarked" and allow anyone to use it in whatever patches they want? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
renrutal
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 135
Location: Brazil
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nklb wrote: | | Isn't the firefox sourcecode released under the GPL (If it's a different licence like BSD, then my argument doesn't hold up) |
| Code: | * www-client/mozilla-firefox
(...)
License: MPL-1.1 NPL-1.1
|
That needs a bit of an update, it's actually tri-licensed.
| nklb wrote: | | If so, wouldn't the fact that their trademarked term "firefox" appears IN the source code, under the GPL, invalidate the fact that it is "trademarked" and allow anyone to use it in whatever patches they want? |
Uh, no. Basically the law of copy rights and the law of trade marks are two completely different things. Same with the intelectual property laws.
In open source licences, you agree to let everyone copy, modify and redistribute your works, as long they share the same license. However, this will never take out the initial copyrights and intelectual property from the original authors. On the other hand, more authors will be added to the copyrights and IP, making the work more public. In the end, most of the time, everyone is represented by one entity. In Gentoo's case is the Gentoo Foundation, Inc..
It is indeed a legalese hell, sometimes one author might want you to give out your copyright to him, to avoid law problems. Hans Reiser at Namesys does this.
Trademarks are another matter entirely, and most of the Open Source licenses don't cover it (it's inconceivable to ask one party to give out their trademarks if they want to contribute to the code).
Maybe Firefox should be accompained by a (R) or (TM).
Law + Open Source licenses is still a gray area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jerkface
n00b
Joined: 19 Apr 2004
Posts: 65
Location: Tacoma, Wa
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As Gentoo is all about choice, I think Iceweasel is a better fit. I've always hated the fact that I was forced to have google as my default search. I was also a little upset when they stopped putting the dictionary.com search in by default. These guys are a bunch of sellouts and we should stop supporting them! 
_________________
Most Linux users don't know this, but the man pages are named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fscking hates noobs! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marcion
Apprentice
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 158
Location: England
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:56 pm Post subject: Mozilla are the next Microsoft? |
|
|
Debian's guidelines are fantastic and I cannot believe how many people (Linux users too) who are bashing Debian online.
| cokehabit wrote: | | basically debian are spitting their dummy out because everyone doesn't act the same way that they do |
No Debian has had its guidelines long before the idea of a graphical web browser existed. Debian previously had a compromise agreement with Mozilla.
The only thing that changed was that Mozilla corporation was formed and this took over trademark issues. Mozilla broke the deal.
The only reason why Mozilla corp give a monkey about their trademark is because of the Google millions. Otherwise who gives a crap? Mozilla corp want to "maintain the brand integrity of the product" for money. No-one gives a crap about maintaining the brand identity of GCC or Emacs. Apple's version of Emacs quite different but keeps the same name.
So someone repackages Firefox and makes it better/worse, why should anyone care? No one is forcing you to use Debian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marcion
Apprentice
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 158
Location: England
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jerkface wrote: | | As Gentoo is all about choice, I think Iceweasel is a better fit. I've always hated the fact that I was forced to have google as my default search. I was also a little upset when they stopped putting the dictionary.com search in by default. These guys are a bunch of sellouts and we should stop supporting them! |
Iceweasel is really funny, more jokes in Gentoo!
I agree that we should keep our package names similar to the other community distros, however I am not sure if we want to pick this particular fight right now, I am not scared of the greasy lizards but I think we do not really want to divide the Gentoo community, civil wars are a big waste of time.
Gentoo is about choice so why not try Epiphany/Konqueror instead? If we are going to make any ground on the desktop at all then we are going to need great native applications rather than ones that have been half-ported from Windows.
I think when Firefox, Seamonkey and Epiphany use XULrunner then I think Firefox's current near monopoly on the Linux desktop will begin to fall apart. People will use whatever frontend that they want while remaining compatible with web services that have been designed with Mozilla in mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3355
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:05 am Post subject: Re: Mozilla are the next Microsoft? |
|
|
| marcion wrote: | Debian's guidelines are fantastic and I cannot believe how many people (Linux users too) who are bashing Debian online.
| cokehabit wrote: | | basically debian are spitting their dummy out because everyone doesn't act the same way that they do |
No Debian has had its guidelines long before the idea of a graphical web browser existed. Debian previously had a compromise agreement with Mozilla.
The only thing that changed was that Mozilla corporation was formed and this took over trademark issues. Mozilla broke the deal.
The only reason why Mozilla corp give a monkey about their trademark is because of the Google millions. Otherwise who gives a crap? Mozilla corp want to "maintain the brand integrity of the product" for money. No-one gives a crap about maintaining the brand identity of GCC or Emacs. Apple's version of Emacs quite different but keeps the same name.
So someone repackages Firefox and makes it better/worse, why should anyone care? No one is forcing you to use Debian. |
who cares, Debian are acting like babies and refusing to see that there is a real world out there where people like to keep a trademark because it stands for something they believe in. The software is free, the software is open source, they like to keep the patching in house because they can keep quality control... I see no step that mozilla has put wrong, it is just Debian trying to be all high and mighty
_________________
https://otw20.com/ OTW20 The new place for off the wall chat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tylerwylie
Guru
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 458
Location: /US/Georgia/Atlanta
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ahh how much Epiphany rules with extensions.
If you use gnome why use firefox?
It's a big name that's why. No one cares for little ole Epiphany. I gave it some time and it is faster, better integrates with the desktop and uses the same rendering engine. Enter in a couple extensions and bam. Winner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rokstar83
Guru
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 423
Location: MD
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mozilla has got to do what its got to do as does Debian. I don't fault Mozilla, because they have to enforce their trademark, which is not something you can do selectively. Debian has laid down what it feels is free and what isn't. Its not like its a terrible lose for either company. There are other browsers out there, and as many people have pointed out its not even necessarily the best anymore. Everyone's got to make choices. Debian's made theirs as has mozilla. Yeah sure both sides could have been more professional about it but does everything really need to be a flame war in the FOSS world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Chat
