On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:21:41 -0300 Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I didn't mean to start the discussion here. Is this normal procedure? Sure. Any email is open for discussion. > On May 21, 2008, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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). > > IOW, you oppose the idea of making an exception to enable people to > distribute spins of Fedora with the Freedom² feature in it? Yes. > >> . 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. > > We're talking about a different package here. This is not a fork. > Call it a branch if you must label it to achieve the purpose of > denying freedom to Fedora users. Ok, then I'll call it an alternate kernel package. Which we still aren't going to allow. > > Please work with the kernel team to integrate this into the > > main kernel package. > > I believe I've already explained why I can't do that. I refuse to > distribute non-Free Software, and posting a patch that removes these > bits amounts to posting those very bits. So work with upstream to get them removed or pushed to separate firmware packages. > Now, how about *you* work with the Fedora team to provide Fedora users > with one of its advertised features? I wouldn't mind if you took the > xdelta or the tarball or the srpm I created, that provides Fedora > users with freedom, and took it upstream. But both of us know > upstream doesn't want that and doesn't care about the freedom that > Fedora claims to care about. How do we get out of this conundrum? Given your preference to not work in a manner which would be compatible with Fedora Engineering practices, I'm not sure there is a way out. However perhaps you can enlist some help from someone that would be willing to do that. > Admit that Fedora is not about Freedom, such that I move on and stop > trying to achieve the stated goal, or actually work to at least enable > users to enjoy this stated goal? I think that's hyperbole. I also think the firmware rules we have in place are fair and beneficial for most users. I have no problems with you working towards your goal. As I said before, I commend it. However doing that with an alternative kernel package isn't something that sits well. > >> . 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. > > One of us is missing something. How would a comps group prevent the > accidental installation of say non-Free kernel or firmware packages > brought in through unintended dependencies, for a user who wants to > make sure no such software is installed, for example? Fine, a fair point. Create a Free spin via a kickstart file. Having that virtual package is more pain to maintain than a ks file and sort of goes against how we tend to do things. > > I think we can certainly discuss it. However I believe the biggest > > hurdle to what you propose is the extra kernel-libre package. > > I suppose you're talking about disk space. I sympathize with that, Hardly. I'm talking about having any alternate kernel, period. > > 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. > > And largely misunderstood while at that. Not by everyone who objected > to it, for sure. I don't think there's been a large misunderstanding. Simply two differing opinions on the matter. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
