On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/05/2010 06:26 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question
>> that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never
>> bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do now:
>>
>> * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not
>> simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹)
>>
>> It wouldn't be the first (albeit it likely would be the biggest) fork
>> where we also still ship the original (dd{,_}rescue comes to my mind),
>> hence I'd assume the packaging guidelines do not forbid something like
>> that. Or do they?
>
> No but that would involve actual work rather than merely making the
> claim that software licensed under GPL/MPL is non-free if it doesn't
> allow the use of a name when patches are applied to it.
>
> Rahul
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
I don't blanket label everything with open code as "free software".
Some stuff bundles things which make it non-free. Code open-ness !=
free. You can call Firefox open source if you want, but it's not free
software.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
