On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Robyn Bergeron <rbergero@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> 2a) Do Fedora's foundations allow for any ease of use around non-free >> software? >> >> We seem to have several people that think they don't, yet we have wiki >> pages explicitly describing how to install non-free software ( >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Flash). We also have a page that points to >> 3rd party repositories that contain a wide variety of software of both >> free and non-free nature ( >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_party_repositories), which has been >> approved yet seems at odds. > > > IMO, this is a deflection and fails to recognize the difference of > describing something in the wiki vs providing the software much more > directly. If a couple of pages in the wiki is being brought up some kind of It's not a deflection. It's a reflection that it seems odd we recognize users want this software, and we have a proposal that wants to make it easier to get it from the same sources the wiki pages point to, but we treat them as entirely separate concepts. Please avoid the word "provide" when describe the proposal. It has connotations that Fedora is shipping this software, when the proposal clearly states that is not the case. Put another way, if we're going to make concessions and tell people how to get said software in our documentation, why would we not make those same concessions, with the same messaging, in our software where legally possible? Note: I am not advocating either way, which is why I simply said it seems odd. josh _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
