On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 01:41:23PM +0200, Christian Iseli wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:15:25 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > Anyway to cut a long story short it boilds down to a matter of > > principles. Ask yourself *why* Fedora has a certain FLOSS ideology > > that disallows for example packaging and shipping of non-FLOSS > > software and the answer will be applying to why Fedora should not be > > using/supporting non-FLOSS in any other way. See also the discussion > > of using non-open media formats on redhat.com. It all spins around a > > chosen core ideology. > > In the case of Coverity, I think it all boils down to whether or not > we allow them to file bug reports against Extras packages. That's a different model from the one discussed, e.g. embedding a non-FLOSS checker into the buildsystem. In the case of simple external reports, you don't have to justify *how* you found the bugs, you are only required to outline the bug itself. Such a model would be rather inofficial and in no need of any explicit consent from Fedora's POV. And I can't imagine even the most hardcore FLOSS defendants to disallow that - it would equal to filter out mails posted by non-open mailers (well maybe some hardcore folks actually would request that, too :) > AFAIK, we allow anyone to file bug reports against Extras packages. How > and through what means the bugs were uncovered has never had any > bearing on the matter. > > Why should it matter in the case of Coverity ? I agree, this is an acceptable model of "cooperation", which isn't an explicit cooperation at all, just as you outline. But from the discussion I'm not sure whether this is the targeted model, most visions of using this technology are far more intrusive than simply having an external entity file some bugs. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpCmH9VAszP6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
