On Feb 11, 2008 11:23 AM, Luis Villa <luis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm trying to think of a case where one can create open data, but only > with proprietary tools, and failing- I must be missing something > obvious, though. Does it matter? The point we aren't going to demand users use an open toolset when choosing to license the resulting content in an open way. Video editting comes to mind. Can you create theora videos through a process which uses proprietary tools.. yes. Do we demand that users avoid doing that..no. Do we demand that contributors who are contributing content for the Fedora project to use directly? In some case...yes. In fact I think if pushed we'd probably demand that of all contributions if we could. >> 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. > I'm not entirely sure I follow this sentence. Does 'which aims to > remove user access' apply to the patch, or the upstream code projects? Example, flash plugin download in firefox. We could apply a patch to our firefox which deliberately stopped our firefox binaries from going out and finding Adobe's flash plugin when firefox detected a need for it. Doing this would be a deliberate effort to remove access to a legal, but closed source, plugin that the firefox upstream developers have chosen to make accessible to end-users of the application. We would have cause for such a patch if we felt that the firefox plugin detection technology was not giving the end-user an equitable choice between an open source and closed source plugin meant to perform the same function. If automatic detection of optional functionality does not have built in support for choice, then I feel Fedora is free to demand an open implementation where one exists, regardless of the relative level of functionality when compared to the closed source implementation. Also note that I am not talking about systemwide 'plugins'... I'm talking about application technologies aimed at individual users on a system. If there was some upstream project that exist which meant to automatically download proprietary plugins and install them systemwide, I would endeavor to keep that technology out of our codebase. I draw a bright line between end-user application customization and system-wide customization...even on single user system. >> 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 > endeavor to users to-> hope (prefer?) that our users will ? Will passionately encourage our users to use and contribute...... It's more than hope. Hope is passive...we aren't going to be passive about it. We aren't going to sit on our hands and wait for people to 'get it'. We are going to take every damn opportunity to encourage people to use and contribute open technology. And where there are no opportunities to engage people over this, we will create those missing opportunties and challenge people to participate. -jef"drink from the mental firehouse that is my mind"spaleta _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
