Fedora's FLOSS prociples (was: coverity code checker in Extras)

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:29:36PM -0400, Max Spevack wrote:
> + It's not open source, but there is no free alternative that can do the 
> same thing.

I don't want to spoil anything and I'm not the activest FLOSS
agitators, but I see a conflict of goals and tools.

The kernel-uses-bitkeeper-technology created more noise than it served
good and bitkeeper was closer to open source than coverity while Linus
was less pondering on FLOSS principles than the Fedora goals do, so
projecting that to the future I see endless threads about the
pure-FLOSS Linux using non-FLOSS tools.

There is an argument often brought up in these situations which goes
like "since no FLOSS alternative exists, we need to use that". But the
same is true about ipw* firmwares/closed source daemons, closed source
3D graphics and so on. There is even discussion of not allowing
external kernel modules, even fully FLOSSed ones, in Fedora to
demonstrate Fedora's embracement and loyality to FLOSS.

If we want to open the backdoor to non-FLOSS bits we will be blamed on
being selective and non-open ourselves serving only our needs at hand.

Don't get me wrong, as I said I'm no FLOSS die-hard agitator, and I
would personally welcome a code checker. But it does conflict with
Fedora's manifesto and will create a flood of noise and bad marketing.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060830/60ef1c84/attachment.sig>