On Mar 25, 2008, Anders Karlsson <anders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think others have already said that separate package is not the way > to go. Modification to existing kernel spec and then passing the right > switch when building to generate your kernel is probably the better > way. But this doesn't enable someone to build a 100% Free spin of Fedora. While it's true that the binaries wouldn't contain any non-Free Software in this case, the corresponding sources that must be offered along with the binaries would. So the person who chose to distribute this spin would still find herself in a situation of being required to accept and distribute non-Free Software, which is precisely what my efforts are meant to avoid. So, you see, it completely fails to meet the goal, so it's a non-starter. > Shake? Sure :-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
