Richard Hughes (hughsient(a)gmail.com) said:
On 19 January 2015 at 18:28, Christian Schaller
<cschalle(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> So my suggestion is that we have an initial discussion about this on the next
workstation meeting and based on what we decide there I be happy
> to start drafting some documents outlining how this could work.
I think we really need to decide on a sliding scale of non-freeness
and get some wording for each, For example:
* Free, legally redistributable, but just not in Fedora proper, e.g.
Chromium, various stuff in COPRs
* Non-free but legally redistributable, e.g. Chrome
... would "non-free, but legally installable as long as you're getting it
from the third-party source" be a subset of this, or a different category?
The canonical example of this is the Cisco H.264 module, but I suspect
more 3rd-party software falls into this category - for all I know, Chrome
and Flash do as well.
Bill