On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 02:58:35PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > 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. A different category IMHO. Anyone might reasonably question or propose down the line a different approach for software that remixers could redistribute. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
