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

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



On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 10:55, Warren Togami wrote:

> 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.

http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/terminology.html disagrees with you
on that point (along with me, not that it would matter that much ;-):

"""
Packages in Fedora Extras must be built entirely from software meeting
the open source guidelines; [...]
"""

I personally like being able to use both Core and Extras repositories
and being sure that it's only open source software (by whatever
definition of what open source constitutes). Putting non-free stuff into
a different repository isn't that much of a hassle and is only courteous
to the people who care about this issue.

Nils
-- 
     Nils Philippsen    /    Red Hat    /    nphilipp redhat com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."     -- B. Franklin, 1759
 PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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