Licensing and technical issues with a Wine package that includes the Mozilla ActiveX Control

Hi,

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 14:08:13 +0000
Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:55:30 +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote:
> > Honestly, I don't like the idea to distribute userland windows
> > applications or libraries in our packages. If wine upstream will include
> > them, I, as one of the universe maintainer, would remove them from the
> > upstream source package.
> > 
> > Actually I'm quite frightend that someone will develop a new spyware
> > tool, which runs only on wine environments and using unseen buffer
> > overflows to inject malicious code or starts linux binaries, which are
> > installed during the installtion of those tools. And the easiest way to
> > do it, is to activate activeX by default.
> 
> Huh? None of this makes any sense. You can write perfectly good spyware
> for Linux without involving Wine, and the "Mozilla ActiveX control" has
> nothing to do with ActiveX in web pages, it's purely the equivalent of
> GtkMozEmbed.
> 
> Also, you should not be unilaterally interfering with upstream packaging
> decisions regardless of what happens - we have more than enough bugs
> reported to us thanks to random packagers "fixing" Wine, thanks.

No, you didn't get me.

I don't like the idea to distribute Windows Userland Libraries or
Applications, which is normally installed by the user manually.

The ActiveX Control of Mozilla is such a type of lib/app.
And yes, my example was a bit exaggerated.

But again, if this will be shipped by upstream, I would remove it from
the upstream source, for me it doesn't belong into the wine upstream
source. 

Regards,

\sh
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20051121/58b5309e/attachment.pgp