On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:20:39 -0300 Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On May 21, 2008, Brian Pepple <bpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to > > this mail and I'll add it to the schedule. > > Given that Freedom² is a major fedora feature, I'd like to discuss > enabling the creation of Fedora spins containing exclusively Free > Software. These are related sub-topics: > > . Permission to distribute under the mark 'Fedora' spins containing > kernel-libre packages, whose sole difference from identically-numbered > Fedora kernel builds is the removal of a few pieces of non-Free > Software. All spins must be composed of packages that are contained within the Fedora repositories. kernel-libre does not fit that category (today). > . Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of the > kernel-libre package, a 100% Free Software variant of the kernel > Linux, that I've been maintaining tracking Fedora kernel builds at > http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/linux-libre/ We've had this discussion. We aren't going to allow a forked kernel package. Please work with the kernel team to integrate this into the main kernel package. > . Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of a > fedora-freedom "virtual" package, that Requires: linux-libre and > Conflicts: with any Fedora package known to contain software (firmware > included) that does not respect the 4 freedoms established in the Free > Software definition. AFAIK these would pretty much amount to the > standard non-Free kernel and a bunch of *-firmware packages, but there > could be sub-packages to cover other debatable packages with obscure > source code, dubious licensing policies, etc. You don't need a package. Make a comps group. > I realize these packages should probably be submitted for inclusion > through the regular package submission process, but I was advised to > discuss linux-libre in FESCo first, and the second is closely related > and has no upstream. > > I'm a bit hesitant, for these appear to be more of policy than > engineering issues, and my understanding is that the board is in > charge of such decisions. Anyhow, it (hopefully :-) wouldn't hurt for > the board to get recommendations from engineering in this regard, > assuming my understanding as to how policy decisions are made is > correct. > > Please let me know whether this is a suitable topic for discussion in > tomorrow's meeting, and I'll do my best to be there, i.e., save for > unforeseeable issues or ISP LoQoS I've been subject to recently :-/ > the L in LoQoS is for Lack, in case it's not obvious :-) I think we can certainly discuss it. However I believe the biggest hurdle to what you propose is the extra kernel-libre package. Your overall proposal hinges on that, and the way you've stated you would like to provide it has been frowned upon quite a bit. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
