seth vidal wrote: > On Sun, 2007-11-04 at 20:14 -0500, Christopher Blizzard wrote: >> seth vidal wrote: >>> http://lwn.net/Articles/256974/ >>> >>> Btw - in the interview they mention further integration of the webstore >>> into codeina/codecbuddy. If it starts looking like we're pushing closed >>> source software then that, imo, is when codeina gets dumped out of the >>> distribution. >>> >>> I don't care about needles and I don't want to ween the addicts off. >> Pushing or making available? Or making it easy? >> > > The precedent is what I'm most worried about: > > we're okay having sales items for closed-source codecs in our distro > what about drivers? > what about closed-source application software? opera? matlab? > > Seriously, at what point do we draw the line and what criteria do we use > to distinguish one item from the other? > If I may - wasn't that line drawn quite a while ago, by stating Fedora goals? Codec buddy inclusion does not leave a bad taste (although this is very arguable) in the commercial context - the fact that it directly links to and encourages the use of non-Free stuff does. Vladimir > -sv > > > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
