Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx> wrote: [...] > Let me try to explain the orignal rule with an example. For example a > GPL licensed emulator for an old acorn computer may not be included > despite its GPL license since it is only usefull using acorn riscos > roms which are copyrighted and may not be freely redistributed. Since > its only use is with copyright protected material, shipping the (non > functional) emulator could be seen as contributary copyright > infringement since the emulator clearly does not have a significant > non infringing use. OK this far. > OTOH, shipping a doom engine variant clearly is fine, even if it is > one which doesn't work with the freedoom datafiles, since the original > doom engine was released under the GPL by the doom copyright holders, > so clearly they allow distribution of the engine without it being > accompanied by doom datafiles. I fail to see the difference of A creating a program P and content C, and A creating P while B creates C. The program P could very well be open source and the content C closed in both cases. And if streched enough this could even forbid CD players or MythTV (code is open, content (music CDs, TV programs) isn't). > So changing this unwritten rule to mean that any piece of software > which is non functional without any content, and for which no freely > redistributable content is available, may not be included. Would be a > very broad stretching of the original rule (which we really need to > write down somewhere). I don't really know what the "unwritten rule" was. I do agree this should be clarified. [...] > In general the problem is that content creators (artists) are not as > much into freedom thinking (yet?) as the freesoftware movement is, esp > they think that no one should be allowed to make any money of their > work in any way. On top of that they also often think that their > creation is perfect as is, and don't want others to harm their work by > modifying it. > > Take the largest opencontent movement for example, the creative > commons, many of the licenses they provide are non free by our > standards, and unfortunately the non free ones, esp. the non > commercial one, are the most populair ones. Including such stuff in Fedora proper would preclude any commercial use of the distribution, that is quite contrary to its spirit. Perhaps a "non-commercial" repo could be set up? -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
