Verily I say unto thee, that Rahul Sundaram spake thusly: > Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote: >> Any comments on the following, and how it might pertain to future >> releases?: > > Moonlight: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Moonlight Thank you. I hadn't actually seen that page, but I was aware that you'd blocked Moonlight as non-Free. Indeed, this is why I'm so surprised that you don't block Mono for the same, or similar, reasons. > Mono has been discussed extensively in the past. So just refer to > list archives for details. In advance of reviewing the archives, I'd just like to reiterate concerns that have been made about Mono elsewhere: [quote] I read the agreement between Xandros and Microsoft, and one of the excluded products was Mono, so Microsoft promises to not sue Xandros over their distribution but excluding Mono and a few other products, i.e. they reserve the right to sue over Mono. I wonder if this is an interesting preview of on what basis they want to fight the free world. Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not excluded from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to sue Novell over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but true. [/quote] http://commandline.org.uk/linux/2007/aug/5/be-careful-who-you-kiss/ Coupled with the revelations of Microsoft's agenda for Moonlight, I'd say it's pretty clear that Mono is a serious (and unnecessary) risk, since Mono is encumbered by similar terms, by the same patent holder. > Firefox: EULA shown is just MPL/LGPL/GPL and doesn't really make it > non-free anymore than showing EULA in previous Fedora releases made > it non-free. Having read the EULA, I see there is considerably more in there than just the MPL, in fact there is no mention of the GPL at all, and only a very brief reference to the MPL. The vast majority of the document details Intellectual Property restrictions, and other insidious elements such as export restrictions. Also, I really don't think that Free Software should require an affirmative confirmation of license acceptance to allow use of that software, especially when what one is "accepting" is the revocation of one's rights WRT that software. The EULA itself does not even read like an expression of Freedom, but much more like a corporate declaration that /inhibits/ Freedom. In fact I couldn't even locate a copy of that version of the license on Mozilla Corp's Website, to review before deciding whether or not to download the software, although this is a preview release, so that may (hopefully) change. Ultimately I had to download the tarball, and even then I could not find a license file to read, I had to actually run the software to see the (presumably embedded) license. I've published a copy here (I assume that publishing a copy of the license is not, in and of itself, some form of Intellectual Property violation): http://slated.org/firefox_3_is_this_really_free_software [quote] By clicking the "Accept" button, or by installing or using the Mozilla Firefox Browser, you are consenting to be bound by the Agreement. If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, do not click the "Accept" button, and do not install or use any part of the Mozilla Firefox Browser. ... Mozilla, for itself and on behalf of its licensors, hereby reserves all intellectual property rights in the Product, except for the rights expressly granted in this Agreement. You may not remove or alter any trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notice in or on the Product. This license does not grant you any right to use the trademarks, service marks or logos of Mozilla or its licensors. ... 8. EXPORT CONTROLS. This license is subject to all applicable export restrictions. You must comply with all export and import laws and restrictions and regulations of any United States or foreign agency or authority relating to the Product and its use. 9. U.S. GOVERNMENT END-USERS. This Product is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in 48 C.F.R. 2.101, consisting of "commercial computer software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995) and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202 (June 1995). Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212, 48 C.F.R. 27.405(b)(2) (June 1998) and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202, all U.S. Government End Users acquire the Product with only those rights as set forth therein. [/quote] IMHO this is non-Free, and obviously both Debian and FSF agree with me, since they have each forked Firefox. Personally I just don't see why there should be an issue switching to the Freest available version of any given software. > However refer > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447661 Thank you. -- Regards, Keith G. Robertson-Turner -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
