Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
chris at tylers.info
Sun Apr 25 18:48:29 UTC 2010
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 12:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 13:37:11 -0400,
> Matthias Clasen <mclasen at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit
> > > to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should
> > > be breaking our rules to help them.
> > I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visibility and
> > importance of the Firefox and Fedora brands... nobody knows what Fedora
> > is, while most computer users will have at least heard about Firefox.
> Yeah, but "most computer users" isn't relevant. The question is about what
> is relevant to Fedora users. Changing the name of Firefox will have little
> affect on them since it is installed as the default web browser. Being able
> to fix bugs in a timely manner on the other hand, is going to have a
> significant affect on them.
Wait, let's not get silly here.
Fedora has a great relationship with Mozilla. They're an amazing project
filled with people that Get It, and we can work out issues with them in
a cooperative way.
* Mozilla is currently implementing unit tests *on Fedora* in addition
to their long-standing tests on CentOS. This benefits both communities.
See Armen's blog posts at
http://armenzg.blogspot.com/2010/04/unit-tests-for-fedora-utont-project.html and http://armenzg.blogspot.com/2010/04/one-more-fedora-unit-test-suite-visible.html
* Mozilla's brands are very well-known: They have 350+ million users
across multiple platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux), far more than we have
in Fedora. The ability to use these apps in Fedora helps to assures new
users that switching costs will be low.
* The trademark rules are there for a reason. Browser and e-mail clients
are some of the most common attack points on desktop systems, and
Mozilla needs to ensure that they don't get a black eye for some
vulnerability introduced by a distro. And distros definitely introduce
vulnerabilities: think about the Debian ssh-keygen patch fiasco as an
example. We wouldn't do something so rash, of course -- or would we? The
suggestion earlier in this thread that we patch TB and push directly to
stable does not instill confidence. (We have the freedom to turn off the
branding anytime and use the code however we want, but why give up the
marketing value? and why give up the testing?)
Let's not be brash. If we want to ship TB with one small patch, it's a
simple matter of asking.
More information about the devel