On 5/2/07, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 08:21 -0500, Rex Dieter 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, not >> necessarily (100%) free, > > This sentence of yours doesn't match with current practices: ... > The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to > build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from > open source software. I fail to see any mismatch: I said opensource, the "goal" says opensource. Unless you're trying to extend this goal to firmware, but we'd already (hopefully) established clearly that this is an *exception*. > => The firmware packages do not fall under this definition. Right, since *firm*ware != *soft*ware and was the point of my "doesn't run on host-cpu" qualifier. The rest I pretty much agree with, and certainly in a perfect world we'd all love 100% opensource firmware too.
I think the difference between firm and soft is non-existant in some eyes. If it is a bit, it must be documented and must be hackable. I don't think that any debate/reasonable questions would change this world-view. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
