On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 02:58:35PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
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.
A different category IMHO. Anyone might reasonably question or
propose down the line a different approach for software that remixers
could redistribute.
--
Paul W. Frields
http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - -
http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow:
http://opensource.com