On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 19:57 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 21:05 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On May 10, 2007, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> And today I realized that's not quite enough to ensure that the *user* > > >> receives the source code from us. All that states is that *we* get > > >> the source code. > > >> > > >> So we could in theory accept Free Software, including source code, > > >> under a liberal license, build it AFAICT in perfect accordance with > > >> our guidelines, and distribute only its binaries to our users. > > > > > huh? , it's right in the *definition* of opensource (see item 2): > > > http://opensource.org/docs/osd > > > > Yeah, and it's in the definition of Free Software. And if *we* can > > enjoy the freedoms, it's Free Software for us. And if software > > complies with all the criteria set forth in the OSD, then it's OSS for > > us. > > > > But where do we state that it's going to remain so for our users? > > _Fedora_ doesn't have to. _Fedora_ cannot change the licenses of the > packages we ship. Those licenses dictate that we cannot remove the > freedoms granted to the users. Add to that the fact that we don't not do not ^^^^^^^^^ /me is so tired. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
