On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 20:29 -0400, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:03:51 -0700, you wrote: > > >On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 15:50 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > >> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 14:52 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > >> > This is definitely scope creeping the discussion here, but I'm coming > >> > round to the viewpoint that Fedora shoudn't ship any application in > >> > the default install whose primary purpose is to connect to proprietary > >> > web services, or at least not ones configured by default to do so. > >> > (All apps are of course free to be in the repositories). > >> > > >> > This would dovetail nicely with making it not suck to install applications. > >> > >> I don't think this is a useful direction to take the F14/pino problem > >> into. If we stop installing applications that are useful for users, then > >> the users will go somewhere else. > > > >This is the same argument you can make with proprietary hardware > >drivers. Ultimately we've always agreed with the FSF position that > >encouraging the use of proprietary software just makes it less likely > >that free software will be written, so we shouldn't do it. > > > >The situation here is exactly analogous. If we choose to, say, ship a > >client configured to connect to identi.ca by default instead, we're > >putting our weight behind freedom in a very important area, just as > >important as hardware support. > > Pino does not connect to anything be default, you need an account in > order to connect to either twitter or identi.ca with a dedicated > client like pino. In that case, IMHO, it's fine. > The bigger question this brings up is where does Fedora draw the line. Yeah, indeed. There's a big fuzzy area. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
