On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:21:44 +0100 Moritz Muehlenhoff
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:46:59PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > For clarity, do you mean you're fine with a iceweasel->firefox-esr
> > transition in stable(jessie) when we upgrade to 45? (which will be
by 45.2,
> > at the beginnin
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> The goal of this bug is to rename Iceweasel in Firefox.
...
> = About branding =
Would it be possible to retain the iceweasel package as a branding
package that simply depends on firefox-esr? I like the icy weasel.
--
bye,
pabs
https:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 06:33:26PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
> > The goal of this bug is to rename Iceweasel in Firefox.
> ...
> > = About branding =
>
> Would it be possible to retain the iceweasel package as a branding
> package that s
I'm glad this finally got sorted out having been involved in some of the
discussions
earlier on and trying to sort out the differences. Kudos to everyone who
sorted this out!
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru
wrote:
> Package: iceweasel
> Version: 45.0~b5-1
> Severity: normal
>
Time flies, and no upload has been done yet. I apologize for this. I've
been successively busy, then down with influenza.
Anyways, after having given this more thought, here are a few
observations on the implementation side:
- Since Debian hasn't had firefox* package in years, and even back then,
Package: iceweasel
Version: 45.0~b5-1
Severity: normal
The goal of this bug is to rename Iceweasel in Firefox.
The various issues mentioned in bug #354622 have been now tackled.
= Actors =
Mike Hommey is one of the most prolific Mozilla developer in term of number
of commits (in the top 10). H
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> = About the Debian specific patches =
Mozilla's trademark policy isn't clear about how much modification
requires Mozilla's written consent. Any written consent except for a
clarification to Mozilla's trademark guidelines would be specif
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:48:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Mozilla's trademark policy isn't clear about how much modification
> requires Mozilla's written consent. Any written consent except for a
> clarification to Mozilla's trademark guidelines would be specific to
> Debian and thus would be in
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:48:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
> > = About the Debian specific patches =
>
> Mozilla's trademark policy isn't clear about how much modification
> requires Mozilla's written consent. Any written consent excep
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:35:11 +0100 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:48:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> >
> > > = About the Debian specific patches =
> >
> > Mozilla's trademark policy isn't clear about how much modif
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 06:42:08AM -0600, David McMackins wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:35:11 +0100 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:48:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > >
> > > > = About the Debian specific pat
While I won't pretend to fully grok the full nuance of DFSG interpretation,
this is a relatively accurate summary of the current position, and I
believe we're on the right side of DFSG at present from a licensing/policy
standpoint. (Back in the day, out licensing of the marks themselves was
proble
Hi David,
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 06:42:08AM -0600, David McMackins wrote:
[on firefox trademark rename requirement]
> I still think we are approaching something dangerous. Sure, we might
> have the ability to make these patches which Mozilla doesn't think
> misuse their trademark, but what about
Thanks to everyone for the explanation. I think I understand the situation now.
On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 10:42 -0500, Mike Connor wrote:
> The one point I'll clarify is that this isn't even something I'd call
> an exception. We have always sought to permit and enable
> modifications that do not neg
Le 19/02/2016 01:19, Paul Wise a écrit :
> Thanks to everyone for the explanation. I think I understand the situation
> now.
>
> On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 10:42 -0500, Mike Connor wrote:
>
>> The one point I'll clarify is that this isn't even something I'd call
>> an exception. We have always sought
, I had meant to send this to the bug, but somehow, the bug wasn't
in the Cc list...
Does the security team (now CCed) have a comment to make about stable
(see further below)?
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:23:32AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 04:55:42PM +0100, Sylvestre Le
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:19:46PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> , I had meant to send this to the bug, but somehow, the bug wasn't
> in the Cc list...
>
> Does the security team (now CCed) have a comment to make about stable
> (see further below)?
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:23:32AM +0900,
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:48:10PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:19:46PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > , I had meant to send this to the bug, but somehow, the bug wasn't
> > in the Cc list...
> >
> > Does the security team (now CCed) have a comment to make about
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:46:59PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> For clarity, do you mean you're fine with a iceweasel->firefox-esr
> transition in stable(jessie) when we upgrade to 45? (which will be by 45.2,
> at the beginning of June)
It's likely a lot easier on your side if we do that, right?
I
19 matches
Mail list logo
