On Feb 10, 2008 10:58 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Feb 10, 2008 10:20 AM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade <kwade@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There is a legal line and a moral line. We are careful not to cross the > > former, but we are having a hard time defining and keeping to the > > latter. > > > My moral line: > > We are not going to include closed source code directly in the > repository we control, which is designed to execute on the computer > architecture we build and release for. > > We will not include open source code that could only interact with > proprietary data, but we will not hamper the user's ability to use > proprietary data ( which is taken to mean copyrighted in such a way > that is not distributable directly by Fedora, but still legally usable > by individual users) whether that data is music, videos, web pages, > documents,etc. This does not mean that "useful" open data has to be > available..but it must be demonstratable that open content can be > created for consumption by the code in question. Such open data does > not need to be created using open tools, though of course that is > preferable. > > We recognize that the line between code and data can be muddy, > especially when we cross hardware or network boundaries or use > emulation. We will continue to work on refining the policy in these > areas. We recognize that our policy decisions will inevitable be prune > to inconsistency due to the complexity of the situation, and we > apologize in advance. > > We will limit any Fedora specific patching of upstream code projects > which aims to remove user access to legally obtainable proprietary > helper executables (plugins) or legally obtainable proprietary data. > Some upstream projects have built frameworks which make it easier for > end-users to access legal proprietary plugins. These plugins are > outside the scope of our packaging repository which we directly > control. While we continue to endeavor to users to use and contribute > to the development of open tools over proprietary solutions, we > recognize that our users make their own choices.. and the the upstream > projects similarly make their own choices as to what to functionality > to expose to end users. > > If upstream projects that use plugin detection technology are willing > to support a choice of both open and closed plugins for the same task, > then we are content to pass on that choice to the user. But if an > upstream project prefers to only present proprietary solutions and > makes no room for an open choice for the same task.. then we have > cause to disable that plugin detection technology in our releases. > > > How's that for a manifesto? > That's pretty a good manifesto. I'd sign it. Best Regards, John "Live Free or Die Closed" Babich _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
