|
Michael, I think if you look carefully, there are a lot of packages in Fedora that are licensed under licenses the FSF does not believe to be Free. They are, however, open source. If RMS is willing to drop his compatibility issues around these licenses, then FEDORA could be Free. Until then, RMS is being inconsistent if he says, in one breath, that these licenses are not Free but that he is still willing to call the distribution Free even if it includes them. But then again, when you are a dictator, you can make any rules you want. Patrick is right when we say Fedora has already been FOSS. I see little value to be gained beyond that position. Mark Michael Tiemann wrote: On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 20:08 -0400, seth vidal wrote:I'm wondering what you guys think about changing the tilt of Fedora from open source to free software. Namely, saying that the license should meet the free software definition ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ) and then mentioning that OSI-certified licenses (with the exception of the Reciprocal Public License, which we're going to reevaluate) are a good list, as well as the free software licenses that are listed on the FSF website. The goal is to make Fedora a distribution that the FSF can positively endorse. I think we're really close. Any reason to not try to go all the way? |
