Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
On 2004-07-12 15:53:45 +0100 Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
The flames that issue forth every time someone dares to downgrade or
suggest temporarily ignoring a "foo is non-free" bug that came from
-legal speak for themselves.
If there are that many, I guess a lot of these are either not brought
to -legal's attention or are in response to flames or immediate closes
(DDs, surely the correct tags are moreinfo and help if you don't
understand why?) because someone dared to file a "foo is non-free" bug
against their beloved package. Neither is particularly healthy, but it
doesn't look as one-sided as your comment suggests.
We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured
browsers *other* than Netscape, right?
You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't be laughed out of the
park for releasing without Mozilla at the moment? [...]
Do other Mozilla packages suffer from the bug(s) keeping Mozilla
Firebird 0.9.1 in experimental? If so and it's not solved, this line
of discussion may be moot anyway :-/
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what
my liver is sure to say about him in [...] 40 years" -- branden