[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]



Hi Nils,

On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 12:15, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> 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.

> 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; [...]
> """

Finally a reference! This gets us halfway, but... which "open source
guidelines"? "The"? Now who makes the decision about these issues? Could
(s)he come up with a proposal for discussion or just make a decision
about which guidelines we use and get this on the web site? Please end
the vagueness.

> 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.

What needs to be avoided is that such software is mixed with free
software in the repository. I don't mind so much semi-free software is
offered to people, however I do feel the distributor of such software
(Fedora Extras in this (hypothetical) case) should put some effort into
avoiding illegal redistribution by third parties. The least you can do
about it is put the software in a "semi-free"/"non-free" branch and put
notices in COPYING. If you want to put it in a different repository the
question remains if such a repository should be hosted by Fedora. Fedora
Semi Free ;) ?
 
Leonard.

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




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