Paul W. Frields (stickster@xxxxxxxxx) said: > 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. Yeah. I'm just a little curious whether having a repo that points *to* the third party actually counts as (re)-distributing of the software anyway. Hate to get too many categories, but just thinking around how 'issues with distribution' (e.g, copyright) and 'issues with use' (e.g., patents) are not entirely orthogonal - it's a 2x2 matrix, not two options. A question for Fedora Legal. Bill -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
