Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I assumed people would take the hint and follow the first link, to read about it, since this is a follow up. I've now hinted at it more strongly, and provided a short intuitive definition. Does this make it clear enough?
Yes. It does.
If not, what paragraph's last couple of sentences don't make sense to you? (or by 'paragraph' do you mean 'section'?)
"Fedora and Ubuntu have both revisited their policies about inclusion of non-Free firmware in their distributions, even though no actual policy changes were made at this time."
We made no policy changes at all in Fedora. I am not aware of what changes were made in Ubuntu regarding firmware either. Perhaps references would be useful to understand what you are talking about. Earlier there werent many packages that met our licensing guidelines for firmware (ie) at the base minimum, it should be redistributable and those that were had licenses which required some legal review/clarifications. So now that we have some potential candidates, we are looking at including those packages. These are firmware for wireless cards. So we cant do something like codec buddy here since folks probably would require the firmware to get to a net connection in the first place. Catch 22.
Rahul _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
