On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:29:36PM -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > + It's not open source, but there is no free alternative that can do the > same thing. I don't want to spoil anything and I'm not the activest FLOSS agitators, but I see a conflict of goals and tools. The kernel-uses-bitkeeper-technology created more noise than it served good and bitkeeper was closer to open source than coverity while Linus was less pondering on FLOSS principles than the Fedora goals do, so projecting that to the future I see endless threads about the pure-FLOSS Linux using non-FLOSS tools. There is an argument often brought up in these situations which goes like "since no FLOSS alternative exists, we need to use that". But the same is true about ipw* firmwares/closed source daemons, closed source 3D graphics and so on. There is even discussion of not allowing external kernel modules, even fully FLOSSed ones, in Fedora to demonstrate Fedora's embracement and loyality to FLOSS. If we want to open the backdoor to non-FLOSS bits we will be blamed on being selective and non-open ourselves serving only our needs at hand. Don't get me wrong, as I said I'm no FLOSS die-hard agitator, and I would personally welcome a code checker. But it does conflict with Fedora's manifesto and will create a flood of noise and bad marketing. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpj1xKKBpwdd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
