Matej Cepl wrote:
No need to call it “political reasons” (on the side of MoFo) ...
nowhere
in the definition of free software is written, that upstream has to
accept your patches. It may happen upstream (any upstream) disagrees with
your patch, you may not agree with them, but in the end it is their
decision and if you don't agree you can either suck it up or fork. Both
alternatives are still freely open for you (and Fedora as whole) in MoFo
case as well (just to make this clear).
With any other upstream, we can just patch it in Fedora if upstream rejects
the patch. Mozilla is abusing trademark law to prevent us from doing that,
making the package effectively unmaintainable in the distribution, and
leaving a rename as the only reasonable solution.
If there is any political reason, then it is Fedora/RH policy to
oblige
with upstream trademark terms and to keep our Firefox/Thunderbird/
XULRunner as close to the upstream as possible to save us work
maintaining our patches and not go Iceweasel way.
No. It is Fedora's policy for all packages to follow Fedora guidelines, even
where they conflict with upstream. Staying close to upstream is only one of
the SHOULD guidelines and as such NEVER trumps MUST guidelines such as no
bundled libs.
Kevin Kofler