On May 1, 2007, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> Atleast in Fedora the division is clearly documented in the >>> packaging guidelines. >> >> Which is and has always been incompatible with the stated goals of the >> Fedora project. > It may be worth pointing out here that Fedora currently only includes > objectives/packaging-guidelines to be opensource/redistributable, Err... Except that, when I got into this thread, I was thanking Rahul for the clarification on the front page. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ says: All in pursuit of the best operating system and platform that <a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html";> free software</a> can provide. So if what you say is true, the front page ought to be amended. Or vice-versa. > (1) redistributability was considered good enough (for now), notably > because firmware is tied to hardware, and doesn't run on the host cpu. I understand the double-thinking, I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency with the stated goal in the front page. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
