Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:It's not lost. It's moved ;)
> Hi
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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?
>
>
> I understand it but a couple of wiki pages don't serve that case very well.
> I could setup a redirect now in a couple of minutes and the argument is
II highly doubt, anyone would point out say fedora users list or Ask Fedora answers and say, hey, we are answering questions on Nvidia driver here, so lets provide a better method for users to find the Nvidia driver in GNOME Software. Well, I guess you could but your argument would be pretty weak.
They aren't random. They were vetted and approved by Fedora Legal as
being pages that can reference third party repositories. They are, to
my knowledge, the only such pages approved in a legal sense. If they
were random, I would have deleted them or had them deleted as I did
the other pages that were found that weren't approved.
I don't think the Flash page had anything to do with legal approval and to my knowledge, there is nothing preventing a similar wiki page from describing say Skype. It is non-free software but there is no legal issue with describing how to install non-free software. I don't see why one would need legal approval for that. Something in the wiki doesn't make it endorsed by Fedora as a project. They are often user contributed content (for example, FWN summaries describing how to install the Nvidia driver or even MP3 codecs in great detail) .
Rahul
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
