Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
> Though, there are some instances where the prevailing opinion should be
> ignored, when there is no solid evidence to back it up, e.g. Mono and the
> like.
Indeed, I also think defending freedom is important (and it was part of my
campaign). But I've also been unhappy with FESCo's decisions in that domain,
e.g.:
* libvdpau was approved for Fedora. This is a library which:
- only accelerates decoding patent-encumbered MPEG family video codecs.
ALL software which uses that is in RPM Fusion, not Fedora, anyway.
- has no actual Free Software implementations. It is ONLY implemented by
proprietary drivers.
So what does Fedora have to gain from this pseudo-Free library?
* in at least 2 occasions, so-called "Open Core" [1] crippleware has been
not only approved for Fedora (which makes sense, as IMHO we should accept
everything under a Free license and with no patent issues as a Fedora
package), but advertised as a Fedora Feature, which I consider to be
completely counterproductive, as it gives free press coverage to such
crippleware and sends a message to companies that releasing some crippled
shareware version under a Free Software license is enough to get your
product advertised as Free or "Open Source" all over the planet. My
complaints about giving free advertising to such crippleware have been
entirely ignored.
[1] http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
