The wiki page for Dell Inspiron Mini (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dell_Mini_Inspiron -- needs renaming) has instructions for installing the non-free Broadcom wi-fi drivers. These instructions are now superseded by the binary packages in rpmfusion-nonfree, and I'm wondering if in this case we can provide a link from the WIki to RPMfusion.
If not, would we need a valid-everywhere-in-the-world-but-cannot-enter-Fedora category? Something like the Flash page that Warren used to mantain?
Thanks,
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Salim" michel.sylvan@gmail.com To: "Fedora devel" fedora-devel-list@redhat.com, "RPM Fusion developers discussion list" rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 9:27:13 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Referring to rpmfusion on Fedora project wiki?
The wiki page for Dell Inspiron Mini (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dell_Mini_Inspiron -- needs renaming) has instructions for installing the non-free Broadcom wi-fi drivers. These instructions are now superseded by the binary packages in rpmfusion-nonfree, and I'm wondering if in this case we can provide a link from the WIki to RPMfusion.
If not, would we need a valid-everywhere-in-the-world-but-cannot-enter-Fedora category? Something like the Flash page that Warren used to mantain?
Thanks,
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen bob@fedoraunity.org wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Salim" michel.sylvan@gmail.com To: "Fedora devel" fedora-devel-list@redhat.com, "RPM Fusion developers discussion list" rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 9:27:13 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Referring to rpmfusion on Fedora project wiki?
The wiki page for Dell Inspiron Mini (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dell_Mini_Inspiron -- needs renaming) has instructions for installing the non-free Broadcom wi-fi drivers. These instructions are now superseded by the binary packages in rpmfusion-nonfree, and I'm wondering if in this case we can provide a link from the WIki to RPMfusion.
If not, would we need a valid-everywhere-in-the-world-but-cannot-enter-Fedora category? Something like the Flash page that Warren used to mantain?
Thanks,
-- miʃel salim • http://hircus.jaiku.com/ IUCS • msalim@cs.indiana.edu Fedora • salimma@fedoraproject.org MacPorts • hircus@macports.org
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
In the past this has been handled through third parties to allow Fedora/Red Hat deniablity. This is one of the purposes of http://fedorasolved.org/ or in the case of your topic, http://fedoramobile.org/
And presumably we can't really link to fedorasolved / fedoramobile either? There ought to be a policy for editing Wikis so that we don't cover things where the obvious solution cannot be mentioned.
Regards,
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Salim" michel.sylvan@gmail.com To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" fedora-devel-list@redhat.com Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 10:38:55 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: Referring to rpmfusion on Fedora project wiki?
And presumably we can't really link to fedorasolved / fedoramobile either? There ought to be a policy for editing Wikis so that we don't cover things where the obvious solution cannot be mentioned.
Regards,
Michel Salim wrote:
And presumably we can't really link to fedorasolved / fedoramobile either? There ought to be a policy for editing Wikis so that we don't cover things where the obvious solution cannot be mentioned.
Refer
http://lwn.net/Articles/257559/
Rahul
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Michel Salim wrote:
And presumably we can't really link to fedorasolved / fedoramobile either? There ought to be a policy for editing Wikis so that we don't cover things where the obvious solution cannot be mentioned.
Refer
Aha, thanks! So we don't need to circuitously link through a third-party website that then point back to rpmfusion.
I'll re-update the Wiki page.
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 08:51 -0500, Michel Salim wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Michel Salim wrote:
And presumably we can't really link to fedorasolved / fedoramobile either? There ought to be a policy for editing Wikis so that we don't cover things where the obvious solution cannot be mentioned.
Refer
Aha, thanks! So we don't need to circuitously link through a third-party website that then point back to rpmfusion.
I'll re-update the Wiki page.
Still, if it's Fedora's policy not to support non-free software, even if there's no *legal* problem with talking about a non-free driver, would it still be a *policy* problem?
After all, there's nothing illegal about the proprietary NVIDIA or ATI drivers, but the Wiki doesn't talk about how to install those (as far as I can see, anyway).
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 08:51 -0500, Michel Salim wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Michel Salim wrote:
And presumably we can't really link to fedorasolved / fedoramobile either? There ought to be a policy for editing Wikis so that we don't cover things where the obvious solution cannot be mentioned.
Refer
Aha, thanks! So we don't need to circuitously link through a third-party website that then point back to rpmfusion.
I'll re-update the Wiki page.
Still, if it's Fedora's policy not to support non-free software, even if there's no *legal* problem with talking about a non-free driver, would it still be a *policy* problem?
After all, there's nothing illegal about the proprietary NVIDIA or ATI drivers, but the Wiki doesn't talk about how to install those (as far as I can see, anyway).
The Wiki does not talk about those, but in these cases, using open-source drivers lead to reduced functionality as the worst case. Not having functioning wi-fi, on the other hand, is a major dent in functionality.
I probably would not have put up the link to Broadcom at all, but the link has been there since before I noticed the page, so the choice is between: - removing it (and instead, only identify the chipset so people can search for it themselves) - pointing to FedoraMobile - pointing directly to RPMfusion
Regards,
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 13:05 -0500, Michel Salim wrote:
The Wiki does not talk about those, but in these cases, using open-source drivers lead to reduced functionality as the worst case. Not having functioning wi-fi, on the other hand, is a major dent in functionality.
I probably would not have put up the link to Broadcom at all, but the link has been there since before I noticed the page, so the choice is between:
- removing it (and instead, only identify the chipset so people can
search for it themselves)
- pointing to FedoraMobile
- pointing directly to RPMfusion
Mostly I agree, but it seems like something that should be clarified and written down somewhere, or else it's going to be rather confusing. Is there an existing policy on this?
And I could point out that, on my graphics card, neither nv nor nouveau works at all. So if I don't use nvidia, I can only use vesa, which means a) no support for my monitor's native resolution and b) terrible performance.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
After all, there's nothing illegal about the proprietary NVIDIA or ATI drivers, but the Wiki doesn't talk about how to install those (as far as I can see, anyway).
There are people who believe that the binary drivers are in fact GPL violations and thus illegal to distribute. Here's a good discussion from 2006 as to why the FSF thinks that these things violate the GPL:
http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060614-184527
All things being equal, and with no actual court case which has ruled on the issue...It's sort of difficult for the Fedora Project to completely discount the FSF opinion on the matter. Sure the FSF's opinion could be wrong on this particular score. But they sort of have a track record with regard to GPL compliance that would suggest that to be highly unlikely. As a project we certainly do not want to give the impression that we encourage violating the GPL...even if its a disputed grey area like kernel modules.
-jef
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 09:24 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
After all, there's nothing illegal about the proprietary NVIDIA or ATI drivers, but the Wiki doesn't talk about how to install those (as far as I can see, anyway).
There are people who believe that the binary drivers are in fact GPL violations and thus illegal to distribute. Here's a good discussion from 2006 as to why the FSF thinks that these things violate the GPL:
Well, presumably the same logic would apply to wl, then, as it's a kernel module containing non-free code. So either way, we would appear to need a consistent policy here.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
Well, presumably the same logic would apply to wl, then, as it's a kernel module containing non-free code. So either way, we would appear to need a consistent policy here.
wl?
-jef
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 11:13 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
Well, presumably the same logic would apply to wl, then, as it's a kernel module containing non-free code. So either way, we would appear to need a consistent policy here.
wl?
The driver which started this discussion - Broadcom's proprietary driver for their wireless chipsets. It's implemented much like NVIDIA, it's a GPL-licensed wrapper around a binary blob with a proprietary-but-can-be-redistributed license.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
The driver which started this discussion - Broadcom's proprietary driver for their wireless chipsets. It's implemented much like NVIDIA, it's a GPL-licensed wrapper around a binary blob with a proprietary-but-can-be-redistributed license.
Ah,, yes the same policy with regard to legally questionable material would need to apply. I've not seen a reference to an FSF (or other) opinion that the broadcom driver situation is different than NVIDIA with regard to potential GPL violation in how its distributed. Most likely anyone who thinks the NVidia driver is not in violation, is probably going to say the same of the Broadcom driver, and vice-versa. Because of this, the proprietary kernel modules as a group are legally problematic in a way that something like applications like Adobe flash player are not. Insofar as there is a legal controversy, it probably consistently applicable to the proprietary Broadcom and NVidia drivers..unless someone can argue there is a technical or licensing difference that I'm not aware of.
Of course this all comes down to..how do you enforce any sort of policy in a wiki...its not exactly a fun job telling people they can say things which are factually true..but legally problematic.
-jef
Michel Salim wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Michel Salim wrote:
And presumably we can't really link to fedorasolved / fedoramobile either? There ought to be a policy for editing Wikis so that we don't cover things where the obvious solution cannot be mentioned.
Refer
Aha, thanks! So we don't need to circuitously link through a third-party website that then point back to rpmfusion.
I'll re-update the Wiki page.
Please let me know what wiki page is referring to rpmfusion, as I will need to make sure it is carefully and appropriately worded.
~spot
Please let me know what wiki page is referring to rpmfusion, as I will need to make sure it is carefully and appropriately worded.
Isn't that the best way of being sure that one day, someone will speak about RPMFusion and won't let you know as he saw other pages were talking about it and he never read the current thread ?
Unless you keep lurking Special:RecentChanges [1], how can you be certain not to miss some ?
[1] http://ianweller.org/2009/01/16/i-lurk-specialrecentchanges/
----------
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
On 2009-02-24 at 11:26:14 -0500, "Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)" bochecha@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Please let me know what wiki page is referring to rpmfusion, as I will need to make sure it is carefully and appropriately worded.
Isn't that the best way of being sure that one day, someone will speak about RPMFusion and won't let you know as he saw other pages were talking about it and he never read the current thread ?
Unless you keep lurking Special:RecentChanges [1], how can you be certain not to miss some ?
No, but if there is an "approved" location for this information, people will be more likely to link to it rather than to try to reproduce it.
So, I've made: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:ThirdPartyRepositories (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThirdPartyRepositories is a redirect to that).
If you want me to add a third party repository to that page, please let me know. The only criteria is this:
1) The repository can not be involved in a claim of infringement (copyright, patent, trademark, license), nor can I or Red Hat be aware of any material which leads us to believe that infringement is likely. 2) The repository must not duplicate packages contained within the Fedora package repositories.
However, Fedora reserves the right to list or omit repositories, and is not required to do so, even if it meets this criteria.
~spot
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 12:32 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 2009-02-24 at 11:26:14 -0500, "Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)" bochecha@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Please let me know what wiki page is referring to rpmfusion, as I will need to make sure it is carefully and appropriately worded.
Isn't that the best way of being sure that one day, someone will speak about RPMFusion and won't let you know as he saw other pages were talking about it and he never read the current thread ?
Unless you keep lurking Special:RecentChanges [1], how can you be certain not to miss some ?
No, but if there is an "approved" location for this information, people will be more likely to link to it rather than to try to reproduce it.
So, I've made: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:ThirdPartyRepositories (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThirdPartyRepositories is a redirect to that).
If you want me to add a third party repository to that page, please let me know. The only criteria is this:
- The repository can not be involved in a claim of infringement
(copyright, patent, trademark, license), nor can I or Red Hat be aware of any material which leads us to believe that infringement is likely. 2) The repository must not duplicate packages contained within the Fedora package repositories.
However, Fedora reserves the right to list or omit repositories, and is not required to do so, even if it meets this criteria.
That page is solely for *listing* repositories, though. It doesn't (nor could it sensibly) cover the case of "explaining how to install Package X for Purpose Y from Repository Z". You could make the words "Repository Z" in another page link to that page, while explaining how to install something from Repository Z, but that's about all it's useful for...
On 2009-02-24 at 13:38:54 -0500, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
That page is solely for *listing* repositories, though. It doesn't (nor could it sensibly) cover the case of "explaining how to install Package X for Purpose Y from Repository Z". You could make the words "Repository Z" in another page link to that page, while explaining how to install something from Repository Z, but that's about all it's useful for...
We cannot do this, as it gets us into the realm of possible contributory infringement. We are relying on the repositories to explain how to enable them on their own website.
It sucks, but it is where we've been advised to draw the line.
~spot
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On 2009-02-24 at 13:38:54 -0500, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
That page is solely for *listing* repositories, though. It doesn't (nor could it sensibly) cover the case of "explaining how to install Package X for Purpose Y from Repository Z". You could make the words "Repository Z" in another page link to that page, while explaining how to install something from Repository Z, but that's about all it's useful for...
We cannot do this, as it gets us into the realm of possible contributory infringement. We are relying on the repositories to explain how to enable them on their own website.
It sucks, but it is where we've been advised to draw the line.
~spot
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Spot,
You may want to look at and adjust/redirect/delete as needed https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OtherRepositories
-Susan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:32:23PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 2009-02-24 at 11:26:14 -0500, "Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)" bochecha@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Please let me know what wiki page is referring to rpmfusion, as I will need to make sure it is carefully and appropriately worded.
Isn't that the best way of being sure that one day, someone will speak about RPMFusion and won't let you know as he saw other pages were talking about it and he never read the current thread ?
Unless you keep lurking Special:RecentChanges [1], how can you be certain not to miss some ?
No, but if there is an "approved" location for this information, people will be more likely to link to it rather than to try to reproduce it.
So, I've made: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:ThirdPartyRepositories (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThirdPartyRepositories is a redirect to that).
If you want me to add a third party repository to that page, please let me know.
Can you please add ATrpms?
The only criteria is this:
- The repository can not be involved in a claim of infringement
(copyright, patent, trademark, license), nor can I or Red Hat be aware of any material which leads us to believe that infringement is likely. 2) The repository must not duplicate packages contained within the Fedora package repositories.
The second one isn't a legal issue, is it? And some in the Fedora community do appreciate that some packages are offered in an extended way adding build time dependencies that are not in Fedora itself for various reasons (probably for similar reasons the third party repo exist at the first place).
Wrt ATrpms while the tendency has been to remove as much as possible overlap I think we are not 100% there to having a solely add-on repo.
What I want to say is that don't make policies that will only allow the One and Only Repo to pass.
However, Fedora reserves the right to list or omit repositories, and is not required to do so, even if it meets this criteria.
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 23:04 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:32:23PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
The only criteria is this:
- The repository can not be involved in a claim of infringement
(copyright, patent, trademark, license), nor can I or Red Hat be aware of any material which leads us to believe that infringement is likely. 2) The repository must not duplicate packages contained within the Fedora package repositories.
The second one isn't a legal issue, is it? And some in the Fedora community do appreciate that some packages are offered in an extended way adding build time dependencies that are not in Fedora itself for various reasons (probably for similar reasons the third party repo exist at the first place).
Wrt ATrpms while the tendency has been to remove as much as possible overlap I think we are not 100% there to having a solely add-on repo.
What I want to say is that don't make policies that will only allow the One and Only Repo to pass.
Doing this does place a significant burden on Fedora though, esp. on upgrades (and esp. on distro. upgrades). It would be _much_ nicer if the override packages would live in a separate repo. from the purely add-on packages, this also significantly helps out the users who know they can enable repo XYZ because they won't be getting anything they didn't ask for explicitly.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:53:00AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 23:04 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:32:23PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
The only criteria is this:
- The repository can not be involved in a claim of infringement
(copyright, patent, trademark, license), nor can I or Red Hat be aware of any material which leads us to believe that infringement is likely. 2) The repository must not duplicate packages contained within the Fedora package repositories.
The second one isn't a legal issue, is it? And some in the Fedora community do appreciate that some packages are offered in an extended way adding build time dependencies that are not in Fedora itself for various reasons (probably for similar reasons the third party repo exist at the first place).
Wrt ATrpms while the tendency has been to remove as much as possible overlap I think we are not 100% there to having a solely add-on repo.
What I want to say is that don't make policies that will only allow the One and Only Repo to pass.
Doing this does place a significant burden on Fedora though, esp. on upgrades (and esp. on distro. upgrades). It would be _much_ nicer if the override packages would live in a separate repo. from the purely add-on packages, this also significantly helps out the users who know they can enable repo XYZ because they won't be getting anything they didn't ask for explicitly.
Yes, that's the long term plan. It's already implemented for the RHEL5 bits, but Fedora is a different beast, as packages can suddenly appear and make a pure add-on to an overlapping one. So it needs an automated "separator" script. RHEL5 is much easier as the package set is only altered every couple of months and doesn't really introduce that many new packages even then.
It's on the TODO list (but not really at the top). Whether one personally agrees on whether replacement packages are good or bad, shifting the choice to the user is the best way to stop these discussions in all parties' interest. :)
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Tom spot Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
Please let me know what wiki page is referring to rpmfusion, as I will need to make sure it is carefully and appropriately worded.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dell_Inspiron_Mini_9
I've not touched it since my first clean-up since I'm not sure what the safe wording would be.
Would it be preferable to have a single page on the WIki, maintained by fedora-legal, that describes RPM Fusion in terms that are legally safe, and then you can require -- ahem -- encourage -- Wiki editors to link to this page rather than RPM Fusion directly? That way we can keep track of these references.
(Make the notice visible in the edit window to be safe).
Thanks,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Michel Salim michel.sylvan@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Tom spot Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
Please let me know what wiki page is referring to rpmfusion, as I will need to make sure it is carefully and appropriately worded.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dell_Inspiron_Mini_9
I've not touched it since my first clean-up since I'm not sure what the safe wording would be.
Would it be preferable to have a single page on the WIki, maintained by fedora-legal, that describes RPM Fusion in terms that are legally safe, and then you can require -- ahem -- encourage -- Wiki editors to link to this page rather than RPM Fusion directly? That way we can keep track of these references.
(Make the notice visible in the edit window to be safe).
Was replying before noticing in your subsequent email that you've done exactly that. My mistake. The 'make notice visible' suggestion is probably still relevant though.
Thanks,