Let me offer a countervailing opinion, in detail. First, let me say
that this is /my opinion/. Despite the @redhat.com address, this is not
Red Hat's position, it's mine. Second, this is a /preliminary attempt/
to organizing a wide range of thoughts that I've been seeing across this
list over the past 2-3 weeks.
I half expect that this will get shouted down, perhaps by people sitting
near me, but if it's a step in the direction of separating and solving
the issues that this discussion has touched, I'm happy to take it as far
as I can.
Finally, a word about the diagram: I think that Warren's recently posted
Fedora submissions process was a great start, but it did not reach far
enough. This diagram attempts to show how actors within the community
can draw from the universe of available packages and place them into
some meaningful Fedora context.
Shameless plug: I'll be at OSCON next week, so anybody who wants to
flame/praise me in person can do so next week in Portland.
M
On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 04:55, Warren Togami wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Leonard den Ottolander (leonard(a)den.ottolander.nl) said:
>
>>>I don't know that there was ever a firm decision as in a vote was taken
>>>or some dictator laid down the law. I just remember someone suggesting
>>>this approach and I said "that sounds good to me" when asked, and
I
>>>don't know if it went anywhere.
>>
>>I also falsely interpreted your reaction as being a confirmation of
>>adopted policy.
>>
>>How do the Red Hat developers perceive this issue? Is the "intersection
>>between OSI and FSF" approach a good enough compromise for you?
>
>
> It's probably more-or-less mirrors the policy now. Certainly a pine
> package that we could only apply official security patches (and where
> other patches would be by negotiation) doesn't really fit the definition
> of what we'd normally consider.
>
> Moreover, we'd want whoever takes the stuff from Fedora Core to
> be able to redistribute and rebuild as well (of course, you
> have to watch trademark issues here.)
>
> Bill
I notice that Bill said "Fedora Core" in the last paragraph. I
personally have the opinion that if we can get away with it legally,
pragmatism takes precedent to principles. But then again I also believe
much of the Debian social contract stuff is a complete waste of time,
and not conducive to our ability to eventually triumph over the
proprietary forces.
http://macromedia.mplug.org/
One example of where pragmatism is more important than principles is
this closed source abomination. We clearly would be far worse off today
in end-user desktop viability without this software. This is not a
matter open to debate with me. For the moment I believe:
The enemy of our enemy is our friend, for today at least.
This being said, unless legal tells me otherwise, I personally wish to
accept anything in Extras that is not legally risky (as well as
technically sound, etc.) I care less about redistribution rights. That
is their problem, not ours.
I do agree that Fedora Core should always be 100% Open Source. I also
believe that Extras need not be this strict. If you dislike some part
of Extras, then just don't use it.
https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1457
On a somewhat related matter, if you feel restricted by pine's lack of
"Freedom", then give the new cone package a try. I am very impressed by
what I see with cone, and it is Open Source Software, unlike pine. It
should be published in Extras stable real soon now.
Warren Togami
wtogami(a)redhat.com