On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 04:23:21PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 01:59:06PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: >>> On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 14:38 +0200, Denis Leroy wrote: >>>> On 05/19/2009 12:39 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: > >>> And my understanding is that there _is_ a valid legal reason for it. >>> Distributing Fedora in some countries is _illegal_ if it contains >>> certain flags, and can lead to extremely uncomfortable repercussions. > Shipping Fedora is always at risk to contain componets which may be > considered illegal somewhere due to the nature of "nationalism", > "cultural backgrounds", "national laws" and the dynamic nature of such > kind of problems. > > This problem isn't restricted to national symbols (such as flags) but is > subject to many topics (E.g. "uncertified games" in Europe, mp3 in the > US). > >> And since I was asked for my opinion, I think David stated it pretty >> clearly. But frankly I don't think my opinion is needed or, indeed, >> that relevant. > Didn't you state to be intending to "lead by example"? > > If so, you're probably better of to have an opinion. I think you've inferred something incorrectly from my comments. I didn't say that I had no opinion. David already posted an identical opinion and I had nothing to add. >> I do feel strongly that FESCo, as a community elected >> body, > 1/2 community elected. It's a fully elected body. Half the seats are up for election after this release of Fedora, the other half after the next one. This is similar to the succession method for many other elected bodies. -- 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/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
