On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 03:35:57PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > I noticed that unofficial Fedora remix called Pidora was being > advertised on the projects homepage. What do you mean by "unofficial"? There's no set of official remixes. > Who are the individuals that had this bright idea and decided to > open up that pandora box which probably violates various US laws > since general remixes add things like various codes of questionable > license nature as well as graphics drivers etc, stuff which to this > point was something we can't legally point. If you have concrete legal concerns then you should absolutely forward those to the board, but I haven't seen any evidence that Pidora contains material that would be illegal for us to ship (rather than simply material that we would *choose* not to ship). > And should we not put effort in presenting our own community > official remixes before we start presenting unofficial ones and > aren't advertising unofficial remixes on our own mailinglists as > well frown upon? I haven't seen the advertising that you're referring to - have you got a pointer? Pidora fills a niche that nobody else in the Fedora community appears to have expressed an interest in (ie, building something that'll run on ARMv6), so there's a benefit to it existing and us indicating that it's available to people. Given that it's effectively targetting a single device, I don't see any real benefit to including it as part of the general Fedora project, especially since it'd almost inevitably be restricted to being a secondary architecture. But really, what's the problem here? People have chosen to build something interesting on top of Fedora and we've chosen to let people know it exists. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
