On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 12:58 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:02 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
<snip>
> > > > > > "SG" == Stephen Gallagher
<sgallagh(a)redhat.com> writes:
> SG> If they can't get that software from Fedora, they *will* get it
> from
> SG> another source (or use a different OS that doesn't get in their
> SG> way).
>
> Exactly. Let's ship binary drivers.
>
> I know that's something of a straw man, but my point is that we
> must
> have some principles, and must work with upstreams to attempt to
> get
> them to at least understand those principles. And we shouldn't
> give
> up
> on that just because someone wants some program which is easily
> provided
> by a copr anyway.
>
Binary drivers are a different problem. We don't ship those because
there are *legal* concerns preventing it.
Kernel modules are kind of a grey area because there are differing
opinions on their legality in re the GPL, but in general terms, it's
not correct to say we don't include non-free software for *legal*
reasons. There are plenty of non-free-but-legally-redistributable
things, e.g. Flash. We have always been clear that we disallow non-
free software unconditionally for *philosophical*, not *legal*,
reasons.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net