Gregory Maxwell (gmaxwell@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > It's perhaps just as troubling that there are people involved in this > non-public decision who apparently have such a limited understanding > of free software that they were unable to understand the point I made > explicitly in my message (and more elliptically in my subject). How > can I trust that you really had no other alternative, when you can't > even see the loss of freedom associated with this? ... Gregory Maxwell (gmaxwell@xxxxxxxxx) said: > I did not say that this situation was "fedora's making", I know — for example— > That MJG cares deeply about software freedom and that he understands > the loss of freedom here. I'm not sure how you meant this, but I'm having a hard time reading this in a way that's not: - directly contradictory - intentional raising of FUD then stepping back - insinuating some Shadowy Cabal Of Others behind this decision Hopefully you meant something else? In any case, I'm not really understanding the cabal implications here. Matthew and Peter did this work for Fedora as part of their maintainer responsibilities for the x86 boot portion of Fedora, much as the KDE maintainers do work for Fedora as part of their maintainership. Sure, some of the initial work and discussion of solutions was done within a cosortium... well, consortiums suck. Not much that can be done there. But it will be proposed as a F18 Feature, it will be sent to FESCo, and we can all have an exciting, long, and shouty debate there. In the meantime, they're being open and describing what they plan to do, much like any other group or maintainer responsible for part of Fedora does. Yes, we all understand what freedoms are being lost here. Fedora has made compromises in the past, not limited to: - No third party can have their software trusted to be installed on Fedora by default - we don't hand out RPM signing keys. - Hey, look at that binary firmware over there. Some of this is done for security reasons, some of this is done for market share reasons and a desire to work on the most hardware possible. In the grand scheme of things, vendors could come along any day and create a system that works based off the existing Fedora package signing keys, and forks would be in the same boat. Furthermore, there's nothing in this proposal that would prevent forks from doing the exact same key registration, *even if Fedora decided not to*, which seems a prima facie argument that it's not an insurmountable loss of freedom for clones. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
