Is this a dsfg violation?
Ewan Mac Mahon
ewan at macmahon.me.uk
Thu Oct 19 18:07:08 BST 2006
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:48:37AM +0200, Soren Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 06:45:24AM +0800, Joel Bryan Juliano wrote:
> > I grabbed a fresh firefox source from edgy, and a quick grep gives already
> > patched files outside debian/ directory.
> Any package whose name include 'dfsg' has had its source altered in some
> way. This is due to the source containing things that we (or Debian for
> that matter) cannot distribute legally. In Firefox' case I'm guessing
> it's the official artwork.
I'm not sure how that would be the case - surely Mozilla's objection is
to people using the trademarks on modified distributions, they're fine
with people using the marks on unmodified 'official' copies. That being
the case the usual approach of an original source tarball and a Debian
patch would be acceptable since the artwork would only be being
distributed in the original, official, unmodified Mozilla source.
Not that I agree with the OP that patching the source first is a
problem, but it does seem unnecessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20061019/4d426792/attachment.pgp
More information about the ubuntu-devel