On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Eric H. Christensen <sparks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:11:51AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Eric H. Christensen >> <sparks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Maybe I am coming off as a bit pedantic here, but I can't help but feel we are discussing 'non-free web services' based on individual gut >> >> feelings about what that term is supposed to mean. >> > >> > Nope, you are correct in that if we have a gut feeling about something (one way or the other) then we need to be able to clearly define it. >> > >> >> I mean is there anyone here on this list who before this discussion actually had as a personal policy that you don't visit or use any website or >> >> service you don't have the source code to? >> > >> > Maybe not that I don't have the source code for but definitely for their standings in the FOSS community. I don't usually use Google services, avoid Microsoft anything, and basically host the stuff I really want to interact with myself. >> >> Google, Facebook, and Twitter all contribute significantly to FOSS >> projects. Their services may not be libre, but their standings in the >> FOSS community are actually pretty good in my opinion. So I'm not >> sure that's a good litmus test here. > > That's great that these companies contribute to FOSS projects. I'm less likely to complain about services that are developed as FOSS that they are commericalizing. Making it easier for our users to start using their closed projects, however, is not okay. It does not forward our cause for FOSS. Otherwise we could lump Microsoft into that group since they have made contributions to FOSS projects (including the kernel) in the past. Exactly my point. "standings in the FOSS community" is entirely too vague if you're trying to clarify what is acceptable or not. In my opinion, those companies have good standing. If that was the criteria, they'd be acceptable. It's clearly not your criteria though, so perhaps you can reword it to match what you are actually trying to judge on? >From what I can tell, the fundamental issue here is where people are falling on the FOSS spectrum. I am somewhat dubious that we can come up with concrete criteria that will satisfy everyone on that spectrum. The inclusion of web services (FOSS or otherwise) via AppStream metadata is meant to make the desktop more useful to end users. Some view that as promoting FOSS by simply making it more attractive and easy to use for people already using those services. Some view it as promoting non-FOSS. It's not a clear-cut issue that can be decided in a non-subjective manner. I'd suggest we aim more for a middle ground. For item 1 in the ticket, ask the maintainers to change the UI to highlight web services as being web services. As it stands today, one could mistake it for a native app which isn't the case. For item 2, I would also suggest we ask for an open and transparent method for including/deciding which web services to display. josh _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
