On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 20:04 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > Add a second repository, managed under the umbrella of FESCo, which > > can hold packages that violate the basic tenets of the Fedora project > > in some way (specifically those prohibiding sale for profit) but which > > still permit us the freedoms of redistribution, reuse of source, > > modification, and others necessary for the reasonable maintanence of > > the project. > > > > Unfortunately Ralf doesn't take this offer by you seriously, Sorry, I did take this offer seriously, too seriously to be commented on in an add-hoc knee-jerk response to an email which I received at a "piss-bad timing" (19:00+ CET) - there also is a real life away from computers ;) > but I think > its a great idea and I couldn't have worded it better myself. Well, exactly this is the question: Which kind of SW should be allowed to go into such a repo? I would define it by a simple negated definition: "OSS packages which fit into Fedora's criteria, except that they do NOT fit into the OSI definition of "free SW"." [TBD: Check where this "free for non-commercial use" exclusion in Fedora actually originates from, the OSI or RH/Fedora.] > There is quite a bit of software out there which gives one the all > important rights to look under the hood, to also muck under the hood > (not only look but also touch!) and even the right to redistribute the > result as long as its not for a profit. > > To me such software is for most everyday uses 99% as free as truely free > software and I think such a repo would be a welcome add-on to the Fedora > "space". Exactly - The same situation as I am facing. The Fedora/OSI definition of "free SW" doesn't match with my "personal notion of OSS" nor with the legal situation applicable to me, nor does it fit into my demands. To the contrary, Fedora's current policy forces packagers to functionally cripple/degrade packages in FE, because some components, some packages use underneath, do not fit into Fedora's current policy, or to refrain from packaging packages for Fedora. IMO, this is one main cause, why at least some 3rd party repos exist at all - In short: Fedora doesn't match their demands. If Fedora had a "non-free" repo, you'd probably see me wanting to move packages from FE to "non-free FE" or packages to appear in both repos (one "OSI-compliant"/"functionally crippled" variant in FE - and one "functionally extended variant" in "non-free FE"). > I do think btw this repo shouldn't use the Fedora name, I would like it > to use the Fedora infrastructure, and maybe even be added to > Fedora-release (disabled by default), but it doesn't deserve to use the > Fedora name :) Well, IMO it should use the Fedora name, to give it an "official outlook/painting/branding" - Not naming it Fedora would make it a 3rd class citizen - Remember, some people already have problems in accepting "Fedora", because it's not branded "RedHat" and consider it 2rd class citizen, therefore (justified or not). Ralf -- 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
