On Sep 7, 2008, "Jeff Spaleta" <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > but it seems to be we are trying to be responsive in a way that > makes sense from our project's point of view. Not trying to be flamy, but... - there's a 100% Free kernel source alternate upstream that tracks kernel.org very closely, that's identical except for the removal of non-Free firmware, and that's been available for quite a while (linux-libre) - there's a viable alternate source for firmware, both Free and non-Free, and it has been available for quite a while (dwmw2's firwmare git repo) - the removal of firmware upstream won't take place in linux-2.6.27, which pretty much means kernel.org linux sources won't be stripped off of non-Free bits in time for Fedora 10 - Fedora still prefers to ship the encumbered bits, making it impossible to distribute 100% Free spins of Fedora 10 without distributing or committing to distributing the non-Free bits in the corresponding sources of the kernel Care to help me understand how that is responsive or makes sense from the project's point of view? I'm quite puzzled at that. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
