> in this case of openmotif, the open motif license, when used in fedora, > allows for modifications and distributions of those modifications both > in binary and source code form. That fits some peoples definition of > free software. > > What it doesn't allow is taking openmotif and putting it in, say, > windows. This could be considered, in some way, even more 'fundamentaly free' than the GPL as the GPL code don't mix with proprietary code, but with proprietary apps, while openmotif (shipped with fedora) don't even mix with some proprietary software (proprietary OS). But such a controversy (and there may be more to say about what is free software from many points of view) doesn't seem to be relevant to me. The issue is here that of a definition. Keeping openmotif or not based on some ideas about mixing with proprietary OS would be religious belief. I think that here this is not the issue, the issue is simply, is openmotif OSI compliant? If not, it shouldn't be shipped with fedora. Or fedora shold change its goals, to mention somehow that the softwares with openmotif licence are accepted. > As such I agree with Ralf that this is a > religious belief, not about "free software" per se. It's about the definition of free software, (or about the definition of fedora): * if the definition of free software is the OSI definition then openmotif isn't free software. * If fedora is only made of OSI compliant softwares then openmotif shouldn't be in fedora. -- Pat -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
