Re: more nonfree stuff

[Mike Hommey]

On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 11:55:43AM +0100, Alexander Sack <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 08:56:43PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 08:34:38PM +0100, Giuseppe Scrivano 
> > <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Probably we should use only the remove script instead of put new files on 
> > > the
> > > CVS repository, I think it will be a lot easier to be maintained.  What 
> > > do you
> > > think about it?
> > 
> > I think at least some should be fixed in-tree rather than with
> > remove.nonfree, because things like the bugreport I quoted should be
> > fixed in a way that Mozilla would apply it to its tree.
> > 
> 
> Yes, it would be best if mozilla would fix this for us. However, imo
> its better for us to have an intermediate (though dirty) solution NOW
> than to have no solution at all ... Maintaining remove.nonfree and
> maybe another one called 'rebrand.sh <VendorName> <ProductName>'
> (where the sed commands I introduced would belong) is an efficient way
> to do that as well as a good reference for future discussion with
> mozilla.
> 
> Note, I consider it good news that mozilla appears to be willing to
> work on non-free mess in their sources [1]  - in the long
> run. However, this is going to take time. So lets just give them the
> time they need to chew on this instead of demanding something (Toby
> Smithe: to be honest, they just don't owe anything to us). Once
> mozilla asks for help, provide them with what they need (e.g. a list
> of non-free files, places where branding is still hard-coded, bugzilla
> references, etc.).

We can also cleanly patch the source and send the patches to them,
instead of just pointing out the files.

Mike