FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 21:05 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 10, 2007, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> And today I realized that's not quite enough to ensure that the *user*
> >> receives the source code from us.  All that states is that *we* get
> >> the source code.
> >> 
> >> So we could in theory accept Free Software, including source code,
> >> under a liberal license, build it AFAICT in perfect accordance with
> >> our guidelines, and distribute only its binaries to our users.
> 
> > huh? , it's right in the *definition* of opensource (see item 2):
> > http://opensource.org/docs/osd
> 
> Yeah, and it's in the definition of Free Software.  And if *we* can
> enjoy the freedoms, it's Free Software for us.  And if software
> complies with all the criteria set forth in the OSD, then it's OSS for
> us.
> 
> But where do we state that it's going to remain so for our users?

_Fedora_ doesn't have to.  _Fedora_ cannot change the licenses of the
packages we ship.  Those licenses dictate that we cannot remove the
freedoms granted to the users.  Add to that the fact that we don't not
accept packages with licenses that do not grant those very freedoms, as
already defined in the packaging guidelines.

It is _inherent_ in the licensing we choose for acceptance into Fedora.

> Here's an early draft of what I have in mind.  I understand it's not
> compatible with current practice, but I'm having hard enough a time
> just phrasing the kind of commitment I think we ought to pursue.
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> 
> Fedora's (proposed) Public Promise
> 
> The Fedora Project is publicly committed to respecting its users' four
> freedoms. 

What four freedoms would those be?  You don't list them below.

>  Fedora promises to only distribute software under Free
> Software royalty-free licenses, always offering source code for the
> software itself and any other software needed to build it and run it.
> 
> While Fedora unfortunately cannot guarantee that all the software it
> distributes is free from patent royalties or other legal weapons
> incompatible with the four freedoms, avoiding them is a goal that
> Fedora strives for.  Fedora promises to never distribute software
> under patent licenses or other agreements that would not permit
> downstream recipients to enjoy the four freedoms.

This is something that would need approval from the Board.  As Tom
already said, I doubt the Board would blindly make such a statement.

josh