On Sat, 2015-05-30 at 08:56 +0200, drago01 wrote: > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Brun > <snip> > > I believe the reason is that contributors come from users and one > way to get > > more contributors is to have more users. > > Not only that but in order to push FOSS and open standard you need to > have some market share to have some weight. > For instance Mozilla has some (could be better -- with more users) > influence because of the large Firefox adaption. I completely understand this, but this entire thread is the result of my wondering whether this is as crystal clear to our user and contributor base as it is to you and me :) > > >> The<snip> > >> fit in perfectly with protecting RH. Surely, RH Legal should not > be the > >> the set of people stopping us from including non FOSS software?? > > There is no law or legal issue that prevents shipping non FOSS > software. > The license can be non free but still allow for redistribution. > > The legal issue is about patents which also includes software > released > under FOSS licenses like for instance x264, ffmpeg etc. I admit I generally put them under the same category "Not for Fedora" but I will be more specific in the future. Please excuse these inaccuracies - I've tried to learn and understand all of this by myself and there will be quite a few mistakes in what I write. I do hope the overall spirit of my initial email remains intact, though. -- 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
