On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 11:14 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > I think these need some tweaking, here is how my thought process goes: > > = We cannot break US laws = > Software patents and the DMCA are lame, > but as long as Red Hat is a US company, > we have to play by the rules. This means > respecting trademarks and copyright. Maybe we can put this as a zeroeth filter, always the first and not available for reorder. It's also a binary filter. > == Free Software is best == > We prefer our software to be 100% free. > Free as in FSF. I'm going to drag firmware and such in here; not because I'm arguing for them as a form of software. They are permitted in our distribution in ways that either are exceptions or orthogonal to the free filter and the open source filter. Or is the argument they are not even part of the equation because rule them to be "not software"? - Karsten > === Open Source is almost as good as Free === > In the few cases where something is OSI-approved > but not FSF Free, we'll take it, but we'll work to > free it. (Note: The only item that currently hits this > filter is the Artistic 1.0 license) > > ==== Educating and changing the world ==== > > ===== Usability, Pragmatism ===== > > ====== Open Community Projects are Better ====== > > ======= Budget and Resources ======= > > ~spot > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
