I agree with Jan here, because there is HUGE grey zone involved in deciding which packages are accepted. can't we add a rule in the user agreement, that fedora can't be hold responsible for actions a user does with packages provided by the fedora project? regards, Bert On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Jan Wildeboer <jwildebo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > IMHO it is a risky decision. By limiting the field of use that governs what > constitutes "acceptable" behaviour of Fedora, we effectively add regulations > based on a vague feeling of "this could be somehow something that might put > Fedora at risk". > > I expect a full and thorough analysis of which tools we currently ship could > be excluded under this new doctrine. Think of nmap, wireshark etc. Tools > that have a perfect use for debugging but can also be used for not-so-good > things. > > With this decision, it will become hard to justify why some tools are OK and > others pose a legal risk. > > I am not happy with this new policy. > > Jan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: marketing-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <marketing-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: Fedora Marketing team <marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sun Nov 14 10:30:19 2010 > Subject: [in the news] New Legal Guideline > > Hi, > > Some news in German about new legal guideline on pro-linux.de: > > Fedora gibt sich Richtlinie fÃr Sicherheitssoftware > http://www.pro-linux.de/news/1/16390/fedora-gibt-sich-richtlinie-fuer-sicherheitssoftware.html > > Regards, vinz. > -- > marketing mailing list > marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing > -- > marketing mailing list > marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing -- Bert Desmet 0477/305361 -- marketing mailing list marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
