On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 20:32 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 17:26:58 +0100, > <snip> > > I believe the reason is that contributors come from users and one way > to > get more contributors is to have more users. See, you're just highlighting the issue when you say this. *Why* do we want more contributors? To do *what*? All these: - gain users - gain contributors - make a great OS - and everything else that Fedora contributors think the goal of the community is are *sub* goals that are needed to drive the primary aim of the community - to spread FOSS. These are all means to an end, and the a large part of the community is not aware of this end any more. Isn't this worrisome - especially to the council? > > The reason why we do not include non FOSS software seems to have > > changed from "because we want to only use FOSS - that is our > > mission" > > to "because including non FOSS software may risk RH, the company > > that > > backs us", somewhere along the line. While the latter is true, it > > distresses me to think that for some, this has now become the > > primary > > reason. The primary reason used to be "because we want our users to > > use > > FOSS as much as practically possible", and it is fortunate that > > this > > fit in perfectly with protecting RH. Surely, RH Legal should not be > > the > > the set of people stopping us from including non FOSS software?? > > I think you are confusing non-FOSS software with software covered by > patents or otherwise illegal (DMCA or export controlled) to > distribute > in the USA. Much of that software is free but Fedora can't distribute > it. This is a detail, and does not change the overall goal of my e-mail in any way. However, I'm glad you bring it up. It highlights how we're failing at our goal of educating not just our users, but the community itself. If you played a word association game with the community, and asked what came to their heads when you say "patents", a majority will say something on the lines of "the devil" - they think patents/intellectual property rights and FOSS are incompatible - but you see, this is not true either. When a developer releases software and uses a FOSS license, he is, in fact, *exercising* his IPR - his IPR is now protected. GPL compatible licenses, for example, then ensure this. From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html "To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others. For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights." The person that patented his work is also exercising his IPR, but in a different way. The difference, again, is in the philosophy - and again this is my personal understanding of the subject - we believe that keeping everything open and providing access to code and so on promotes a free exchange that accelerates innovation. But, how many in the community know this? Every package maintainer has to check the license of his package, and see if it is what we call a "good license" - but the same question comes up - *why*? Why is all this being done at all? It is only a matter of time when people forget the point completely - it seems to have started already. It's like studying physics throughout school, and never once in your life seeing something drop and going - "Oh look! Gravity!" What is the point? -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
