Tim wrote: > On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 14:24 -0500, Matt Rose wrote: >> Ah, and the license restriction canard. I was actually expecting this >> one. If Fedora can't distribute this software because of license >> restrictions, how come RPMFusion can, and Ubuntu can, and SuSE can, >> and, and, and. > > Different goals, and others not caring about breaking laws, or not being > bound by the same laws, not caring about sticking to certain licenses, > exposing users to patent encumbrances and so on and so forth, versus a > distro which intends to only include free software. > > The latter one can be very important to some people (whether that be > developers or users). If you ever get threatened with a computer > software audit, you'll have nothing to worry about. > > Some distros run the risk, by including some things, just hoping that > they'll get away with it. Others have done deals with the devil, to be > allowed do so. Deals which can come back to bite them, later on. > > You're not going to get far arguing that Fedora should do something, if > it has a goal that it actually should not. Such removal of things like > MP3 playback are not casual, nor mere omissions. License restrictions are one thing, but IMO Fedora did mistakes in free SW preference too - e.g. in each version of Fedora for several recent years I had to replace cripled and unmaintained wodim with original cdrtools, because otherwise I won't able burn CD/DVD media. Franta Hanzlik -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
