On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 16:14 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 26 February 2015 at 15:30, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx > > wrote: > > This may be nitpicking, but what about the cases for things that > > ARE free and open-source, but may still be illegal in certain > > jurisdictions? (Such as patent-encumbered codecs). > > I'm treating that as non-free and possibly patented. In my head I > couldn't call something "free and open source" if it's got patent > concerns that stop you using it. > > > For example, installing a default MIME-type handler for files > > ending in .repo that allows GNOME Software to be launched and > > prompt you to load it if you click on such a path in a web > > browser. I think that would be in line with both statements. > > I don't actually think that buys us anything in terms of usability. > You might as well just go to the website and download the foo- > release.rpm file, which is even better as it'll install the GPG key > too. > > It also doesn't fix the issue that when you type "steam" into gnome- > software, nothing comes up. That's what we have to fix. > To be clear, I wasn't intending to state that this was a good solution to the problem, merely using it as an example to represent what I think is the intent of the Board statement. As I said, I think it's probably worth reopening the conversation with the Council.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
