On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I think this is a loaded way of framing the decision. It's nothing to do with a "desire not to make concessions to proprietary software vendors".
I disagree. Fedora very strongly has a desire not to make concessions to proprietary software vendors. If we cared to make those concessions, we'd ship all the mp3 stuff, and never have another flame from people saying "where's my mp3".
But we *actively choose* not to support patent-encumbered and/or proprietary software.
This decision places the convenience of users of non-proprietary hardware and software lower than the convenience of people that bought hardware that (everyone should know) is not and cannot be supported by a Free operating system.
I suppose to an extent, but I strongly oppose framing the discussion as purely black and white. There are a million ways to frame the "two sides" and you can choose whatever wording you want to promote your agenda.
As I tried to say in my initial email summarizing the Board's decision, there is a balance of issues and priorities here. Making a decision that is completely to one side or the other -- and *in this instance only* placing a 100% weight on ideology and a 0% weight on potential user breakage -- that seemed like a poor choice.
Like I said, the Board was split. It was not a unanimous decision. And to be clear, it was not *my* decision either. The Board made the decision. I was part of that process, but it was made as a group.
So regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision, at least this was an example of the Fedora governance structure working the way that it is supposed to.
--Max -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
