[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Re: Definition of Open Source [was Re: pine: UW permission to distribute]



Hi Havoc,

On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 22:44, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 
> 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?

Does Red Hat have an official policy about what can be included in RHEL
wrt it's opensourceness? My first thought would to keep Fedora and Red
Hat policies in this matter somewhat similar, but that of course could
be open for discussion.

> Agree with the point that we have to address the leadership etc. issues
> and that it would be good to get this on the web site.

Sadly the leadership/decision making issue has not yet been addressed in
all these months. As long as no other institutions are in place it might
be a good idea to let a work group of Red Hat employees come up with
proposals wrt matters as these. Those proposals could then be discussed
and a conclusion drawn. If no consensus is reached a Red Hat committee
should rule. You could poll or even vote. Since Red Hat has the last
word anyway it's probably better to have some decisions than to stay in
limbo much longer.

Leonard.

-- 
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]