<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.12.0"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 12:00 +0100, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> To be honest, I find stallman's answers quite confusing! >From <A HREF="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis/FSF">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis/FSF</A>: > > * Would it be possible for the FSF to go through our packaging > > guidelines at <A HREF="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines</A> and the > > packages included in Fedora Core and Fedora Extras aside from our own > > licensing audit and point out clear or potential issues with it? > We can certainly go through the guidelines. We have not yet done so, > but we know of one problem in the current policy: it says that > packages can be included which qualify as open source but not as free > software. In other words, not all packages need to meet the > definition of free software. Ok, why not add "free (with source codes) and opensource software" in FE guidelines to satisfy this criteria ? </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> Because it will not satisfy this criteria. There is open source software that the FSF considers non-free. Everything that the FSF considers "free" is also considered open source. They want us to just drop the open source. ~spot </BODY> </HTML>