* Mike Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Just to sum everything up, since some of this is getting circular, this > is how we have been dealing with Linux distros. Ultimately, fair is > fair, and unless you think Debian should get a special deal (which I > don't think is DFSG-friendly, let alone likely to happen) , these are > the conditions you need to get on board with: > > - All changes the distributor wishes to make to the source code must be > provided as discrete patches, along with a description of why the change > is required > - Releases are expected to be based on the CVS tag and/or source tarball > for the release version, plus approved patches. > - build configurations should also be submitted for approval. > - The logo and the trademark are required to be used together. > > Ultimately, I don't have a lot more to say here. The ball is in your > court now, but you should absolutely not plan to ship without addressing > these issues one way or another.
It looks like the only way we can go is to change the name. I'm going to do that as soon as humanly possible. The other issue is if we can still distribute the firefox packages we already have in sarge. If etch releases as scheduled we will still be backporting security fixes into that version until Dec. 2007 (or as long as it is remains possible). Etch will become the new stable release in Dec, so it's doubtful any new users will install sarge after that point. So is keeping the name in sarge permissible? -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
