=== asac_ is now known as asac [00:21] 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] fta: hrm [00:24] oh well [00:24] legal can deal if so [00:24] 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] fta: where's the patches directory for xulrunner, so I don't get angry trying to find it? :) [00:37] mconnor, you want the branch or the patch site ? [00:38] 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] mconnor, so that's http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/xulrunner/xulrunner-1.9.intrepid/files/137?file_id=patches-20070825223227-dck53ndg2coetcqh-1 [00:39] 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] this is going to be a lot of work [00:40] fortunately, I think I have like a week or two [00:41] fta: uh, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=372826 got pulled into xulrunner? [00:41] Mozilla bug 372826 in General "Update about:license, about:buildconfig to the new style/look of about:" [Enhancement,Verified: fixed] [00:41] seriously? [00:43] mconnor, hm, iirc, because it touches toolkit which is in xul, not in the files built in ff with xul-sdk [00:44] oh, sure [00:44] but it's ~2am here [00:44] I don't care where [00:44] but _why_? [00:46] rewinding.... [00:46] Sep 19 23:18:28 fta: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=372826 [00:46] Sep 19 23:18:36 can you see if that applies in 1.9 xul? [00:46] Sep 19 23:18:47 i think attachment 337031 [00:46] rewinding more... [00:46] Mozilla bug 372826 in General "Update about:license, about:buildconfig to the new style/look of about:" [Enhancement,Verified: fixed] [00:47] man [00:47] clearly I stopped whipping asac for too long [00:48] hm, that week was tough, it was during the bug 269656 tournament [00:48] Launchpad bug 269656 in ubufox "AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/269656 [00:48] wow [00:49] nice summary [00:49] sometimes I really hate FOSS zealots [00:50] because seriously, all caps? [00:50] 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] yep [00:51] damn straight [00:51] there's... a lot of bzXXX in here [00:51] * mconnor sighs [00:52] [reed], did you took some of those ? [00:52] take [00:53] *sigh* i'm tired [00:53] fta: I'm about to take off and stop asking questinos [00:54] * mconnor sighs [00:54] this isn't happy-making [01:03] gosh, 119 tabs === Moot2 is now known as MootBot [07:59] anyone here? [08:00] <[reed]> nope [08:18] !info firefox intrepid [08:18] firefox (source: firefox-3.0): meta package for the popular mozilla web browser. In component main, is optional. Version 3.0.3+nobinonly-0ubuntu2 (intrepid), package size 67 kB, installed size 124 kB [08:32] ok its 3:30 im going to bed. [13:57] fta2: asac do either of you have time to push 4 extensions? [14:10] anyone have the firefox about: using gecko version not firefoxes? [14:55] i found it === fta_ is now known as fta [22:13] gasp, http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html [22:22] fta: that's kinda... odd [22:23] I mean, if you're contributing to chrome or something, sure [22:23] but that seems rather weird [22:23] mconnor, songbird has something very similar, which i didn't sign [22:24] mconnor, so i can't post my patches in their bugzilla [22:25] hmm [22:25] Mozilla's is pretty sane [22:26] yay [22:26] its basically "must be licensed in a way that meets our public policy" aka "must be MPL tri-licensed" [22:28] the irrevocable copyright license is weird to me, since that almost feels like "we can ignore the GPL" [22:28] but IANAL [22:29] it's bsd-style [22:29] is it? [22:29] I guess it is [22:29] sort of? [22:30] I mean, this seems parallel to GPL [22:30] or whatever license you pick [22:30] http://dev.chromium.org/developers/contributing-code [22:31] http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html [22:31] GPL [22:31] 14:30 < mconnor> or whatever license you pick [22:31] 14:30 < fta> http://dev.chromium.org/developers/contributing-code [22:31] 14:31 < fta> http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html [22:31] gah, stupid terminal [22:32] 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] its not "subject to terms of the code license" [22:35] 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] i'll ask :) [22:46] The CLA certainly grants google the right to license it however we want [22:46] note however, our CLA is identical to apache's CLA, mysql's CLA, etc [22:46] It's not like we are being different here [22:46] 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] mconnor, ^^ from the lawyer [22:49] fta: yeah, all makes sense [22:49] 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] lol [23:22] hmm [23:22] --disable-updater doesn't hide the UI? [23:22] fail