Talk:Releases/Fx 3.0.7 Partners: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (typo) |
(a question) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
[[User:Kneedham|Kev]] 17:19, 16 April 2009 (EDT) | [[User:Kneedham|Kev]] 17:19, 16 April 2009 (EDT) | ||
: Thanks for the answers. You omitted mentioning source code, though... AFAICT source code is not available in some cases -- eg. it seems that Partner Repack for E-Bay includes some closed-source extension that contains [http://hg.mozilla.org/build/partner-repacks/file/e80af1808017/partners/ebay/extensions/{62760FD6-B943-48C9-AB09-F99C6FE96088}/platform/linux-gnu/components/ binary-only components] (''EbayAccessService.so'', ''EbayFormSubmitObserver.so'')... [[User:BartZilla|BartZilla]] 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | : Thanks for the answers. You omitted mentioning source code, though... AFAICT source code is not available in some cases -- eg. it seems that Partner Repack for E-Bay includes some closed-source extension that contains [http://hg.mozilla.org/build/partner-repacks/file/e80af1808017/partners/ebay/extensions/{62760FD6-B943-48C9-AB09-F99C6FE96088}/platform/linux-gnu/components/ binary-only components] (''EbayAccessService.so'', ''EbayFormSubmitObserver.so'')... My question is: what is the license of these files (and what is the license of the whole browser that includes these files)? For example: is reverse engineering of them allowed or not? Thanks. [[User:BartZilla|BartZilla]] 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:56, 17 April 2009
I've got a few questions related with these "Partner Repacks":
- what are the bug IDs related with these releases?
- what are the changes between official Firefox and these repacks?
- where can I find source code of these repacks?
- why does Google need 4 different distributions? what are the differences between them?
- where can I download these "Partner Repacks"?
I hope my questions won't be left unanswered. Thanks in advance. BartZilla 23:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed some script/files related with partner repacks... BartZilla 00:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a few quick answers to the questions, sorry it took so long to get a reply in, I'll be blogging shortly about them, too.
- Bug IDs have been MoCo confidential in the past. We're changing this with 3.0.9, and all released partner repacks will be tracked publicly from the Releases page, with links to the builds and individual bugs.
- The changes vary by repack, but typically there are changes to the AUS channel, preferences and, in some cases, additional search plugins and/or extensions. we'll be posting details of each of the distributions in the near term.
- All partner repacks are based on the stock release of Firefox. The files in the source installer are not altered in any way. All modifications are done via an extension or distribution customization that is additive only (e.g. separate files from the default). The HG repo you mention above contains those modifications for the repack process. No original files are modified or deleted by the repack process.
- The distributions were for versions of Firefox with Google Toolbar that were distributed through different organizations (e.g. Real Networks and DivX, which distributed Firefox w/Google Toolbar w/ their installer at one point or another).
- We'll be making them available for public browsing/download in the near term. We're in the process of making the repack generation part of the regular build process (target is 3.0.10 for implementation), and we'll also be adding them to the Partnerships section on mozilla.com.
Kev 17:19, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
- Thanks for the answers. You omitted mentioning source code, though... AFAICT source code is not available in some cases -- eg. it seems that Partner Repack for E-Bay includes some closed-source extension that contains binary-only components (EbayAccessService.so, EbayFormSubmitObserver.so)... My question is: what is the license of these files (and what is the license of the whole browser that includes these files)? For example: is reverse engineering of them allowed or not? Thanks. BartZilla 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)