On 11/11/2013 06:26 AM, Tom Callaway wrote: > In general, the items on the Forbidden list are such because they are > either common proprietary software or known to be legally problematic. The idea of creating a second set of acceptable software licenses for Coprs is not a good one. Fedora has a serious and well-deserved reputation for being a safe place where it comes to freedom and openness. I think it's a very bad idea to associate the Fedora brand with troublesome licenses and non-free software. In my mind, the purpose of Coprs was to make it easy and quick for people to package free/open source software and distribute it to other Fedora users. Yes, the package may not be as robust as a formally reviewed packages. But it shouldn't be less-free and more encumbered. At a minimum, we should take this discussion across Fedora, from the Board to the devel lists, rather than catch people by surprise when they grab a Corps package and taint their systems. At the heart of it, I don't understand - why would we want to allow non-free content under the Fedora banner? There are plenty of places in the world for that, and by comparison few that care as much about freedom in software as Fedora. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
