On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:48:38PM -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 19:30 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > I think this is a rephrasing of Jeff's brigth line that he seeks to > > draw and wants to know what it will include and what not. > > Thanks for this post, for me it did a good job of separating the > technical from $other considerations. > > The Fedora brand is a Linux brand. It makes sense to have some > Microsoft Windows stuff where it supports that story, such as tools to > assist migration ... to Linux. The libvirt pieces seem, to me, to be a > good enough fit and belong on this side of the bright line. > > But we need to make it clear that we are not going to morph Fedora into > being some super-meta-FLOSS thing. So, to me, the productivity apps > belong on the other side of the bright line. If we want to be involved > in helping people switch from Microsoft Windows by supporting > productivity FLOSS stacks that runs on that OS, it should be under a > brand other than Fedora. Such as "Mozilla". ;-D I'm OK with Fedora's scope being expanded beyond just "Linux". The Apache Foundation is an example where this has worked quite well. As for mingw, I agree, the resultant bits need to land in their own directory structure outside the main tree, just like we do with seconaries. _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
