[00:21] <fta> mconnor, i don't really know, they grabbed the sources from trunk and built that god knows how. it's not in the official repos but there has been some blog posts about that.
[00:24] <mconnor> fta: hrm
[00:24] <mconnor> oh well
[00:24] <mconnor> legal can deal if so
[00:24] <fta> no need, i should have an experimental xul package rsn, for ff, i'm still not sure how to do it best. it's just a packaging problem
[00:37] <mconnor> fta: where's the patches directory for xulrunner, so I don't get angry trying to find it? :)
[00:37] <fta> mconnor, you want the branch or the patch site ?
[00:38] <mconnor> fta: I want the equivalent of http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/firefox/firefox-3.0.intrepid/annotate/180?file_id=series-20070321172126-hx4btlytc64jyo4n-28
[00:39] <fta> mconnor, so that's http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/xulrunner/xulrunner-1.9.intrepid/files/137?file_id=patches-20070825223227-dck53ndg2coetcqh-1
[00:39] <fta> mconnor, or http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/xulrunner/xulrunner-1.9.intrepid/annotate/137?file_id=series-20070825223227-dck53ndg2coetcqh-4
[00:39]  * mconnor weeps
[00:40] <mconnor> this is going to be a lot of work
[00:40] <mconnor> fortunately, I think I have like a week or two
[00:41] <mconnor> fta: uh, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=372826 got pulled into xulrunner?
[00:41] <mconnor> seriously?
[00:43] <fta> mconnor, hm, iirc, because it touches toolkit which is in xul, not in the files built in ff with xul-sdk
[00:44] <mconnor> oh, sure
[00:44] <fta> but it's ~2am here
[00:44] <mconnor> I don't care where
[00:44] <mconnor> but _why_?
[00:46] <fta> rewinding....
[00:46] <fta> Sep 19 23:18:28 <asac>  fta: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=372826
[00:46] <fta> Sep 19 23:18:36 <asac>  can you see if that applies in 1.9 xul?
[00:46] <fta> Sep 19 23:18:47 <asac>  i think attachment 337031
[00:46] <fta> rewinding more...
[00:47] <mconnor> man
[00:47] <mconnor> clearly I stopped whipping asac for too long
[00:48] <fta> hm, that week was tough, it was during the bug 269656 tournament
[00:48] <mconnor> wow
[00:49] <mconnor> nice summary
[00:49] <mconnor> sometimes I really hate FOSS zealots
[00:50] <mconnor> because seriously, all caps?
[00:50] <fta> well, asac asked me to land that out of nowhere, i guess when he was working on this bug. you'd better keep that question on the list
[00:51] <mconnor> yep
[00:51] <mconnor> damn straight
[00:51] <mconnor> there's... a lot of bzXXX in here
[00:51]  * mconnor sighs
[00:52] <fta> [reed], did you took some of those ?
[00:52] <fta> take
[00:53] <fta> *sigh* i'm tired
[00:53] <mconnor> fta: I'm about to take off and stop asking questinos
[00:54]  * mconnor sighs
[00:54] <mconnor> this isn't happy-making
[01:03] <fta> gosh, 119 tabs
[07:59] <gnomefreak> anyone here?
[08:00] <[reed]> nope
[08:18] <gnomefreak> !info firefox intrepid
[08:32] <gnomefreak> ok its 3:30 im going to bed.
[13:57] <gnomefreak> fta2: asac do either of you have time to push 4 extensions?
[14:10] <gnomefreak> anyone have the firefox about: using gecko version not firefoxes?
[14:55] <gnomefreak> i found it
[22:13] <fta> gasp, http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html
[22:22] <mconnor> fta: that's kinda... odd
[22:23] <mconnor> I mean, if you're contributing to chrome or something, sure
[22:23] <mconnor> but that seems rather weird
[22:23] <fta> mconnor, songbird has something very similar, which i didn't sign
[22:24] <fta> mconnor, so i can't post my patches in their bugzilla
[22:25] <mconnor> hmm
[22:25] <mconnor> Mozilla's is pretty sane
[22:26] <mconnor> yay
[22:26] <mconnor> its basically "must be licensed in a way that meets our public policy" aka "must be MPL tri-licensed"
[22:28] <mconnor> the irrevocable copyright license is weird to me, since that almost feels like "we can ignore the GPL"
[22:28] <mconnor> but IANAL
[22:29] <fta> it's bsd-style
[22:29] <mconnor> is it?
[22:29] <mconnor> I guess it is
[22:29] <mconnor> sort of?
[22:30] <mconnor> I mean, this seems parallel to GPL
[22:30] <mconnor> or whatever license you pick
[22:30] <fta> http://dev.chromium.org/developers/contributing-code
[22:31] <fta> http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html
[22:31] <mconnor>  GPL
[22:31] <mconnor> 14:30 < mconnor> or whatever license you pick
[22:31] <mconnor> 14:30 < fta> http://dev.chromium.org/developers/contributing-code
[22:31] <mconnor> 14:31 < fta> http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html
[22:31] <mconnor> gah, stupid terminal
[22:32] <mconnor> but, aiui, if you give google a perpetual and irrevocable license to use your code and sublicense etc, that means they can do whatever they want
[22:32] <mconnor> its not "subject to terms of the code license"
[22:35] <mconnor> from my reading, that agreement gives Google carte blanche to take anything you commit to their repo and do anything they want under any license they want
[22:41] <fta> i'll ask :)
 The CLA certainly grants google the right to license it however we want
 note however, our CLA is identical to apache's CLA, mysql's CLA, etc
 It's not like we are being different here
 You also retain copyright, so even if we did do something you didn't like, you culd still release and use the code however you wanted
[22:47] <fta> mconnor, ^^ from the lawyer
[22:49] <mconnor> fta: yeah, all makes sense
[22:49] <mconnor> I just don't like it
[23:04]  * mconnor takes another stab at looking at patches
[23:05]  * mconnor wishes he had some whiskey for this
[23:09] <fta> lol
[23:22] <mconnor> hmm
[23:22] <mconnor> --disable-updater doesn't hide the UI?
[23:22] <mconnor> fail