Ralf Corsepius wrote:
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
Thats very good to hear! If you're working on a proposal let me know if I can help.
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"."
I would define it as fits into Fedora's criteria except for a not for commercial
use / financial gain clause. Perhaps later we find some other software with
clauses which have a similar low impact on every day use by a large group of our
users (those users who do not wish to base a product of Fedora) and then we can
add those clauses to the exception list, but for now just having a repo which
allows this free except for no commercial use software would be a big step forward.
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.
Agreed, although I think that promoting 100% free software is important and
sometimes if politely asked authors are willing to drop such a no commercial
use clause. I've had several successes (and failures) asking todo so for
various games.
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 wouldn't want to see packages moved unless the added functionality is
really big, and this cannot be easily fixed with using dlopen. (And yes I'm
willing to write a few dlopen patches where necessary).
Regards,
Hans
--
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
