Is this a dsfg violation?

[Joel Bryan Juliano]

I grabbed a fresh firefox source from edgy, and a quick grep gives already
patched files outside debian/ directory.

firefox-1.99+2.0rc2+dfsg$ grep -lR -i "ubuntu" *
browser/app/firefox-branding.js
browser/base/content/utilityOverlay.js
browser/locales/en-US/chrome/branding/brand.dtd
browser/locales/en-US/chrome/branding/brand.properties
browser/locales/en-US/chrome/browser-region/region.properties
browser/locales/en-US/profile/bookmarks.html
debian/BBC-RSS-URL-promise.txt
debian/changelog
debian/control
debian/debsearch.src
debian/rules
debian/wikipedia.src
extensions/spellcheck/locales/en-US/myspell/en-US.dic
extensions/spellcheck/locales/en-US/myspell/mozilla_words.diff
toolkit/components/printing/content/printdialog.js
xpfe/browser/resources/locale/en-US/region.properties
xpfe/global/resources/content/printdialog.js


but according to dfsg <http://www.debian.org/social_contract>,

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form
_only_ if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the
source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The
license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified
source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name
or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The
Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or
binary, from being modified.)


I like to point out this in a very positive manner, since I'm a big ubuntu
fan, but sin't it all the modifications should be carried out using the
patches and left the source code intact?



Carpe Diem,
Joel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20061019/8b99ace4/attachment-0001.htm