On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 12:15 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > 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. I agree. The link is not an accurate definition of what is included in the distribution. One could make a reasonable arguement that firmware is not "software", but I would rather have that link point to a page in our wiki that explains a bit more clearly what is included and why. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
