On 2009-01-31 at 9:38:08 -0500, "Joshua C." <joshuacov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Unfortunately > because of the fact that the legal Guardian of the Fedora project is > bound by the US laws we should comply with these, too. > Maybe Paul W. Frields should take the next step and make the project > "completely" independant (this is my personal opinion). We've been down this road a few times before, but there are serious logistical problems. If Fedora was a US non-profit entity, that entity would still have to comply with US laws (not to mention the financial issues around where the majority of Fedora's funding comes from). Even if Fedora incorporated as a separate entity in a legal no-mans-land (like say, the Isle of Man *cough, cough, cough*), they would be passing the risk onto US mirrors and users. I'm of the opinion that Fedora raises awareness of the issues that stifle innovation, both in the US and worldwide. There are options for individuals who are not bound by such laws (or who choose to be conscientious objectors). By playing by "the rules" we set a foundation for being able to document how broken laws are making developers and users suffer, and present that material as briefs in cases in In re Bilski: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080409033837121 If you're completely uninterested in trying to fix the system as a participant, there are other distributions which don't care about legal issues. I'm proud that Fedora does its best to protect not just itself, but also its users from legal risk. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
