Richard Hughes (hughsient@xxxxxxxxx) said: > On 19 January 2015 at 18:28, Christian Schaller <cschalle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So my suggestion is that we have an initial discussion about this on the next workstation meeting and based on what we decide there I be happy > > to start drafting some documents outlining how this could work. > > I think we really need to decide on a sliding scale of non-freeness > and get some wording for each, For example: > > * Free, legally redistributable, but just not in Fedora proper, e.g. > Chromium, various stuff in COPRs > * Non-free but legally redistributable, e.g. Chrome ... would "non-free, but legally installable as long as you're getting it from the third-party source" be a subset of this, or a different category? The canonical example of this is the Cisco H.264 module, but I suspect more 3rd-party software falls into this category - for all I know, Chrome and Flash do as well. Bill -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
