On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 12:58 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:02 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > > "SG" == Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > SG> If they can't get that software from Fedora, they *will* get > > > it > > > from > > > SG> another source (or use a different OS that doesn't get in > > > their > > > SG> way). > > > > > > Exactly. Let's ship binary drivers. > > > > > > I know that's something of a straw man, but my point is that we > > > must > > > have some principles, and must work with upstreams to attempt to > > > get > > > them to at least understand those principles. And we shouldn't > > > give > > > up > > > on that just because someone wants some program which is easily > > > provided > > > by a copr anyway. > > > > > > > > > Binary drivers are a different problem. We don't ship those because > > there are *legal* concerns preventing it. > > Kernel modules are kind of a grey area because there are differing > opinions on their legality in re the GPL, but in general terms, it's > not correct to say we don't include non-free software for *legal* > reasons. There are plenty of non-free-but-legally-redistributable > things, e.g. Flash. We have always been clear that we disallow non- > free software unconditionally for *philosophical*, not *legal*, > reasons. You are correct. Thank you for the clarification. I think my original point stands (that it isn't a fair comparison to the bundling problem).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
