From mspevack at redhat.com Wed Aug 2 18:09:13 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview Message-ID: So after seeing today's /. story that had quite a few comments about Fedora/RH, I pinged the guys over there to see if they would be interested in doing an interview directly -- try to get a fresh perspective about what's going on in the Fedora world. What follows is the last email in our thread so far, and it looks like it's going to happen next week, unless something holds it up. I fully intend to have all of the answers come directly out of my fingers (no corporate-speak, etc.) but I'm sure that the questions which are posted will generate some discussion here. Nothing more to add now -- let's just wait until it actually happens. This is just a heads up. --Max ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:03:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Max Spevack To: Robin 'Roblimo' Miller Cc: malda at slashdot.org, scuttlemonkey at slashdot.org Subject: Re: Fedora interview on Slashdot? On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Robin 'Roblimo' Miller wrote: > Shall we put up the "call for questions" Monday? Do you have a bio page > or other link we should reference in that post? That sounds great. Fedora's home is fedoraproject.org (for linking purposes), and the best page about me for bio purposes is found there. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack Couple quick questions for you: 1. Do you do any editing of the answers, or just post them directly? I'm assuming the latter, which is what I'm hoping for. 2. I would be appreciative if you would use the Fedora logo either instead of or alongside Shadowman in the article summary. I've attached an image that you should be able to modify/use without too much trouble. 3. fedora.redhat.com is deprecated, and we are working hard to transition away from that URL. So if you would be kind enough to use fedoraproject.org in your links, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, looking forward to the interview. --Max -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From barzilay at redhat.com Wed Aug 2 18:38:49 2006 From: barzilay at redhat.com (David Barzilay) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:38:49 -0300 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> Nice move, Max. We can never stop online hoaxes or misinformed articles, so I also believe we should always opt for the clarifying method. People speculate a bunch, we explain whassup, then judgement is up to the readers ;) Now my question: do you intend to go against the assumption that Red Hat "neglected its Fedora desktop users"? Best, -- db Max Spevack wrote: > So after seeing today's /. story that had quite a few comments about > Fedora/RH, I pinged the guys over there to see if they would be > interested in doing an interview directly -- try to get a fresh > perspective about what's going on in the Fedora world. > > What follows is the last email in our thread so far, and it looks like > it's going to happen next week, unless something holds it up. > > I fully intend to have all of the answers come directly out of my > fingers (no corporate-speak, etc.) but I'm sure that the questions > which are posted will generate some discussion here. > > Nothing more to add now -- let's just wait until it actually happens. > This is just a heads up. > > --Max > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:03:26 -0400 (EDT) > From: Max Spevack > To: Robin 'Roblimo' Miller > Cc: malda at slashdot.org, scuttlemonkey at slashdot.org > Subject: Re: Fedora interview on Slashdot? > > On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Robin 'Roblimo' Miller wrote: > >> Shall we put up the "call for questions" Monday? Do you have a bio >> page or other link we should reference in that post? > > That sounds great. Fedora's home is fedoraproject.org (for linking > purposes), and the best page about me for bio purposes is found there. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack > > Couple quick questions for you: > > 1. Do you do any editing of the answers, or just post them directly? > I'm assuming the latter, which is what I'm hoping for. > > 2. I would be appreciative if you would use the Fedora logo either > instead of or alongside Shadowman in the article summary. I've > attached an image that you should be able to modify/use without too > much trouble. > > 3. fedora.redhat.com is deprecated, and we are working hard to > transition away from that URL. So if you would be kind enough to use > fedoraproject.org in your links, I'd really appreciate it. > > Thanks, looking forward to the interview. > > --Max > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: barzilay.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Aug 2 18:59:17 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:29:17 +0530 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> References: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> David Barzilay wrote: > Nice move, Max. > > We can never stop online hoaxes or misinformed articles, so I also > believe we should always opt for the clarifying method. > > People speculate a bunch, we explain whassup, then judgement is up to > the readers ;) > > Now my question: do you intend to go against the assumption that Red Hat > "neglected its Fedora desktop users"? Better to wait for the questions to be asked before speculating. I doubt any question would be phrased that way. Fedora is not even in the picture when Red Hat supposedly abandoned the desktop since people equated the retail model with desktop usage and Fedora is not a retail commercially supported product. Having said that, the number of new efforts that Red Hat or people in Red Hat has created (and continue to work on) around the desktop (freedesktop.org, hal, dbus, Network Manager, GTK, Large amount of GNOME etc is good enough a proof that Red Hat is willing to invest very heavily in the desktop. There is a question of better integration in existing products that goes beyond Red Hat's upstream project involvement though. Random examples of this are Network Manager being shipped enabled by default in various other distributions while Fedora does not. Dogtail just got into Fedora development tree yesterday. Sabayon is in Fedora Extras still. Red Hat's launch of purely desktop (and laptop) focused commercial products if any is ever done depend on solid business value. We will get to that point soon I hope. Rahul From barzilay at redhat.com Wed Aug 2 19:45:05 2006 From: barzilay at redhat.com (David Barzilay) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:45:05 -0300 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> References: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <44D100C1.8060809@redhat.com> That was a pretty good summary, Rahul. Although you "doubt any question would be phrased that way", I believe we should be ready for it. Just my 0,02! Rahul wrote: > David Barzilay wrote: >> Nice move, Max. >> >> We can never stop online hoaxes or misinformed articles, so I also >> believe we should always opt for the clarifying method. >> >> People speculate a bunch, we explain whassup, then judgement is up to >> the readers ;) >> >> Now my question: do you intend to go against the assumption that Red >> Hat "neglected its Fedora desktop users"? > > Better to wait for the questions to be asked before speculating. I > doubt any question would be phrased that way. Fedora is not even in > the picture when Red Hat supposedly abandoned the desktop since people > equated the retail model with desktop usage and Fedora is not a retail > commercially supported product. > > Having said that, the number of new efforts that Red Hat or people in > Red Hat has created (and continue to work on) around the desktop > (freedesktop.org, hal, dbus, Network Manager, GTK, Large amount of > GNOME etc is good enough a proof that Red Hat is willing to invest > very heavily in the desktop. > > There is a question of better integration in existing products that > goes beyond Red Hat's upstream project involvement though. Random > examples of this are Network Manager being shipped enabled by default > in various other distributions while Fedora does not. Dogtail just got > into Fedora development tree yesterday. Sabayon is in Fedora Extras > still. > > Red Hat's launch of purely desktop (and laptop) focused commercial > products if any is ever done depend on solid business value. We will > get to that point soon I hope. > > Rahul > > > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: barzilay.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Aug 2 19:53:27 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 15:53:27 -0400 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> References: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:59, Rahul wrote: > There is a question of better integration in existing products that goes > beyond Red Hat's upstream project involvement though. Random examples of > this are Network Manager being shipped enabled by default in various > other distributions while Fedora does not. Dogtail just got into Fedora > development tree yesterday. Sabayon is in Fedora Extras still. It really should not matter if these packages are on Core or Extras. They are available at install time and that is what matters. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Aug 2 20:33:48 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:03:48 +0530 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44D10C2C.8070300@fedoraproject.org> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:59, Rahul wrote: >> There is a question of better integration in existing products that goes >> beyond Red Hat's upstream project involvement though. Random examples of >> this are Network Manager being shipped enabled by default in various >> other distributions while Fedora does not. Dogtail just got into Fedora >> development tree yesterday. Sabayon is in Fedora Extras still. > > It really should not matter if these packages are on Core or Extras. They are > available at install time and that is what matters. > It should not but it clearly does now. What we do later to nullify the differences doesnt change the current status of these repositories. Red Hat spend all the effort in creating a tool which has very low amount of visibility due to decision to provide it in Fedora Extras which is what I was pointing out. Rahul From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Wed Aug 2 21:36:49 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:36:49 -0500 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <44D10C2C.8070300@fedoraproject.org> References: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> <44D10C2C.8070300@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1154554609.12757.6.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 02:03 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:59, Rahul wrote: > >> There is a question of better integration in existing products that goes > >> beyond Red Hat's upstream project involvement though. Random examples of > >> this are Network Manager being shipped enabled by default in various > >> other distributions while Fedora does not. Dogtail just got into Fedora > >> development tree yesterday. Sabayon is in Fedora Extras still. > > > > It really should not matter if these packages are on Core or Extras. They are > > available at install time and that is what matters. > > > > It should not but it clearly does now. What we do later to nullify the > differences doesnt change the current status of these repositories. Red > Hat spend all the effort in creating a tool which has very low amount of > visibility due to decision to provide it in Fedora Extras which is what > I was pointing out. That same decision, however, shows that Red Hat _is_ intending for Fedora to be a community driven distro. It has other benefit IMHO. josh From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Aug 2 21:52:43 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:22:43 +0530 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <1154554609.12757.6.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> References: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> <44D10C2C.8070300@fedoraproject.org> <1154554609.12757.6.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <44D11EAB.3000506@fedoraproject.org> Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 02:03 +0530, Rahul wrote: >> Jesse Keating wrote: >>> On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:59, Rahul wrote: >>>> There is a question of better integration in existing products that goes >>>> beyond Red Hat's upstream project involvement though. Random examples of >>>> this are Network Manager being shipped enabled by default in various >>>> other distributions while Fedora does not. Dogtail just got into Fedora >>>> development tree yesterday. Sabayon is in Fedora Extras still. >>> It really should not matter if these packages are on Core or Extras. They are >>> available at install time and that is what matters. >>> >> It should not but it clearly does now. What we do later to nullify the >> differences doesnt change the current status of these repositories. Red >> Hat spend all the effort in creating a tool which has very low amount of >> visibility due to decision to provide it in Fedora Extras which is what >> I was pointing out. > > That same decision, however, shows that Red Hat _is_ intending for > Fedora to be a community driven distro. It has other benefit IMHO. > Disagree. Sabayon is part of GNOME which is the default desktop environment for Fedora Core and is very useful software. Red Hat developing it is just a additional factor. Rahul From notting at redhat.com Wed Aug 2 22:28:19 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 18:28:19 -0400 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060802222819.GA21400@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: > On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:59, Rahul wrote: > > There is a question of better integration in existing products that goes > > beyond Red Hat's upstream project involvement though. Random examples of > > this are Network Manager being shipped enabled by default in various > > other distributions while Fedora does not. Dogtail just got into Fedora > > development tree yesterday. Sabayon is in Fedora Extras still. > > It really should not matter if these packages are on Core or Extras. They are > available at install time and that is what matters. Technically, they're only available at installtime if a) you're on a network b) you write a ks file, or click a button and enter some info. :) Bill From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Aug 2 22:31:50 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:01:50 +0530 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <20060802222819.GA21400@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060802222819.GA21400@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44D127D6.5050102@fedoraproject.org> Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: >> On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:59, Rahul wrote: >>> There is a question of better integration in existing products that goes >>> beyond Red Hat's upstream project involvement though. Random examples of >>> this are Network Manager being shipped enabled by default in various >>> other distributions while Fedora does not. Dogtail just got into Fedora >>> development tree yesterday. Sabayon is in Fedora Extras still. >> It really should not matter if these packages are on Core or Extras. They are >> available at install time and that is what matters. > > Technically, they're only available at installtime if a) you're on a > network b) you write a ks file, or click a button and enter some info. :) > Is this magic documented anywhere? Rahul From notting at redhat.com Wed Aug 2 22:46:28 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 18:46:28 -0400 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <44D127D6.5050102@fedoraproject.org> References: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060802222819.GA21400@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <44D127D6.5050102@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20060802224628.GA21886@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Rahul (sundaram at fedoraproject.org) said: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > >Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: > >>On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:59, Rahul wrote: > >>>There is a question of better integration in existing products that goes > >>>beyond Red Hat's upstream project involvement though. Random examples of > >>>this are Network Manager being shipped enabled by default in various > >>>other distributions while Fedora does not. Dogtail just got into Fedora > >>>development tree yesterday. Sabayon is in Fedora Extras still. > >>It really should not matter if these packages are on Core or Extras. > >>They are available at install time and that is what matters. > > > >Technically, they're only available at installtime if a) you're on a > >network b) you write a ks file, or click a button and enter some info. :) > > > > Is this magic documented anywhere? It's in kickstart-docs.txt for kickstart. Bill From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Thu Aug 3 00:18:15 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:18:15 -0500 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <44D11EAB.3000506@fedoraproject.org> References: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> <44D10C2C.8070300@fedoraproject.org> <1154554609.12757.6.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44D11EAB.3000506@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1154564295.2676.12.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 03:22 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > >>> > >> It should not but it clearly does now. What we do later to nullify the > >> differences doesnt change the current status of these repositories. Red > >> Hat spend all the effort in creating a tool which has very low amount of > >> visibility due to decision to provide it in Fedora Extras which is what > >> I was pointing out. > > > > That same decision, however, shows that Red Hat _is_ intending for > > Fedora to be a community driven distro. It has other benefit IMHO. > > > > Disagree. Sabayon is part of GNOME which is the default desktop > environment for Fedora Core and is very useful software. Red Hat > developing it is just a additional factor. And it is no less useful in Extras. The differentiation between Core and Extras along the lines of quality and usefulness needs to stop. It promotes the ideals that Extras is somehow second class and it is most certainly not. Yes, Red Hat spent effort creating the tools. That is great. They spend effort doing lots of things that benefit Fedora as a whole. That does not mean that those tools need to automatically be in Core. Core is not about "free advertising" for Red Hat efforts on particular packages. The slashdot interview, however, most certainly can be. josh From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Aug 3 00:18:15 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 20:18:15 -0400 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <20060802222819.GA21400@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060802222819.GA21400@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608022018.21561.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 02 August 2006 18:28, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Technically, they're only available at installtime if a) you're on a > network b) you write a ks file, or click a button and enter some info. Details.... -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Aug 3 00:22:35 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:52:35 +0530 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <1154564295.2676.12.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> <44D10C2C.8070300@fedoraproject.org> <1154554609.12757.6.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44D11EAB.3000506@fedoraproject.org> <1154564295.2676.12.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <44D141CB.6030503@fedoraproject.org> Josh Boyer wrote: >>> >> Disagree. Sabayon is part of GNOME which is the default desktop >> environment for Fedora Core and is very useful software. Red Hat >> developing it is just a additional factor. > > And it is no less useful in Extras. The differentiation between Core > and Extras along the lines of quality and usefulness needs to stop. It > promotes the ideals that Extras is somehow second class and it is most > certainly not. Again thats goal but its not the current reality. > > Yes, Red Hat spent effort creating the tools. That is great. They > spend effort doing lots of things that benefit Fedora as a whole. That > does not mean that those tools need to automatically be in Core. Core > is not about "free advertising" for Red Hat efforts on particular > packages. Agreed but this is not a Red Hat tool now. It's part of GNOME and GNOME is the default desktop environment. That is a good enough reason to include it in core. Rahul From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Thu Aug 3 01:05:43 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:05:43 -0500 Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <44D141CB.6030503@fedoraproject.org> References: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> <44D10C2C.8070300@fedoraproject.org> <1154554609.12757.6.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44D11EAB.3000506@fedoraproject.org> <1154564295.2676.12.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <44D141CB.6030503@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1154567143.2847.1.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 05:52 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > > >>> > >> Disagree. Sabayon is part of GNOME which is the default desktop > >> environment for Fedora Core and is very useful software. Red Hat > >> developing it is just a additional factor. > > > > And it is no less useful in Extras. The differentiation between Core > > and Extras along the lines of quality and usefulness needs to stop. It > > promotes the ideals that Extras is somehow second class and it is most > > certainly not. > > Again thats goal but its not the current reality. I have neither the energy nor the patience to argue with you about this anymore. josh From max at spevack.org Thu Aug 3 03:11:56 2006 From: max at spevack.org (Max Spevack) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 23:11:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] fedora slashdot interview In-Reply-To: <1154564295.2676.12.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <44D0F139.3070007@redhat.com> <44D0F605.9000708@fedoraproject.org> <200608021553.28522.jkeating@redhat.com> <44D10C2C.8070300@fedoraproject.org> <1154554609.12757.6.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44D11EAB.3000506@fedoraproject.org> <1154564295.2676.12.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Josh Boyer wrote: > And it is no less useful in Extras. The differentiation between Core > and Extras along the lines of quality and usefulness needs to stop. It > promotes the ideals that Extras is somehow second class and it is most > certainly not. An emphatic +1 > The slashdot interview, however, most certainly can be. At the very least, it will be interesting. Looking forward to talking about that more next week when it's a reality (assuming they go through with doing it). --Max -- Max Spevack + http://spevack.org + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From kwade at redhat.com Thu Aug 3 14:02:05 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:02:05 -0700 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > From: Tom 'spot' Callaway selinux-doc || Public Use License || Examine LICENSE (4) I can't find an actual copy of this license; googling for: http://www.google.com/search?q=selinux+%22public+use+license%22 Surprise, surprise ... all references are to the selinux-doc package, no links to the text of the license. Depending on how difficult it is, perhaps this one could be relicensed. Dan Walsh is probably the person to contact. I'd reckon that Red Hat would -prefer- to license our contributions under the OPL. Does the OPL qualify as libre by FSF standards? Hope so, because the release notes are now a stand-along package in Core (fedora-release-notes), and they are under the OPL. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Aug 3 14:11:25 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:41:25 +0530 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <44D2040D.6020507@fedoraproject.org> Karsten Wade wrote: >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> From: Tom 'spot' Callaway > > selinux-doc || Public Use License || Examine LICENSE (4) > > I can't find an actual copy of this license; googling for: > > http://www.google.com/search?q=selinux+%22public+use+license%22 > > Surprise, surprise ... all references are to the selinux-doc package, no > links to the text of the license. > > Depending on how difficult it is, perhaps this one could be relicensed. > Dan Walsh is probably the person to contact. I'd reckon that Red Hat > would -prefer- to license our contributions under the OPL. > > Does the OPL qualify as libre by FSF standards? Hope so, because the > release notes are now a stand-along package in Core > (fedora-release-notes), and they are under the OPL. > Yes. The Open Publication License without the optional restrictions that we dont use in Fedora documentation is indeed considered as a Free documentation licenses by FSF http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#FreeDocumentationLicenses I did check this while this license was originally proposed for use within Fedora instead of GNU FDL. It is also worth noting that our CLA does grant us relicensing permissions which can be useful on such circumstances. Rahul From kwade at redhat.com Thu Aug 3 17:07:45 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:07:45 -0700 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <44D2040D.6020507@fedoraproject.org> References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> <44D2040D.6020507@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1154624865.2567.202.camel@erato.phig.org> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 19:41 +0530, Rahul wrote: > It is also worth noting that our CLA > does grant us relicensing permissions which can be useful on such > circumstances. I don't think this applies to the upstream selinux-doc package, but I could be wrong. If we can get Dan Walsh and Stephen Smalley behind the idea, it should be doable somehow. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Aug 3 22:06:51 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:36:51 +0530 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <1154624865.2567.202.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> <44D2040D.6020507@fedoraproject.org> <1154624865.2567.202.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <44D2737B.9080102@fedoraproject.org> Karsten Wade wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 19:41 +0530, Rahul wrote: >> It is also worth noting that our CLA >> does grant us relicensing permissions which can be useful on such >> circumstances. > > I don't think this applies to the upstream selinux-doc package, but I > could be wrong. Yes. The CLA is only useful when we are actually producing content which is pretty limited as already stated in the "No Fedora Foundation" message. When content or code is already licensed independently, the CLA wouldnt change it at all. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Aug 4 14:07:16 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:07:16 -0500 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <1154700436.13057.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 07:02 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > From: Tom 'spot' Callaway > > selinux-doc || Public Use License || Examine LICENSE (4) > > I can't find an actual copy of this license; googling for: Attached is a copy of this license, from the source tree. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! -------------- next part -------------- Public Use License v1.0 I. REQUIREMENTS ON BOTH UNMODIFIED AND MODIFIED VERSIONS The Public Use works may be reproduced and distributed in whole or in part, in any medium physical or electronic, provided that the terms of this license are adhered to, and that this license or an incorporation of it by reference is displayed in the reproduction. Proper form for an incorporation by reference is as follows: Copyright (c) by . This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Public Use License, vX.Y or later. Public Use License, vX.Y is granted by the US Government pursuant to its rights and obligations under DFARS 252.227-7013. Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the citation of the original authors. II. COPYRIGHT The US Government possesses an unlimited license to the Public Use work pursuant to DFARS 252.227-7013, with the associated right to sublicense. By granting this Public Use License the US Government is exercising its right to sublicense the Public Use work. III. SCOPE OF LICENSE Mere aggregation of Public Use works or a portion of a Public Use work with other works or programs on the same media shall not cause this license to apply to those other works. The aggregate work shall contain a notice specifying the inclusion of the Public Use material and appropriate copyright notice. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this license is found to be unenforceable in any jurisdiction, the remaining portions of the license remain in force. NO WARRANTY. Public Use works are licensed and provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose or a warranty of non-infringement. IV. REQUIREMENTS ON MODIFIED WORKS All modified versions of documents covered by this license, including translations, anthologies, compilations and partial documents, must meet the following requirements: 1. The modified version must be labeled as such. 2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the modifications dated. 3. Acknowledgement of the original author and publisher if applicable must be retained according to normal academic citation practices. 4. The location of the original unmodified document must be identified. 5. The original author's (or authors') name(s) may not be used to assert or imply endorsement of the resulting document without the original author's (or authors') permission. V. GOOD-PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to the requirements of this license, it is requested from and strongly recommended of redistributors that: 1. If you are distributing Public Use works on hardcopy or CD-ROM, you provide email notification to the authors of your intent to redistribute at least thirty days before your manuscript or media freeze, to give the authors time to provide updated documents. This notification should describe modifications, if any, made to the document. 2. All substantive modifications (including deletions) be either clearly marked up in the document or else described in an attachment to the document. 3. Finally, while it is not mandatory under this license, it is considered good form to offer a free copy of any hardcopy and CD-ROM expression of an Public Use-licensed work to its author(s). From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Aug 4 14:11:21 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:41:21 +0530 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <1154700436.13057.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> <1154700436.13057.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44D35589.9060101@fedoraproject.org> Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 07:02 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: >>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>> From: Tom 'spot' Callaway >> selinux-doc || Public Use License || Examine LICENSE (4) >> >> I can't find an actual copy of this license; googling for: > > Attached is a copy of this license, from the source tree. > > ~spot > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Public Use License > v1.0 > > This seems to qualify as a Free license at first glance. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Aug 4 14:14:25 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:14:25 -0500 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <44D35589.9060101@fedoraproject.org> References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> <1154700436.13057.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44D35589.9060101@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1154700865.13057.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 19:41 +0530, Rahul wrote: > This seems to qualify as a Free license at first glance. While I don't disagree with you, it is unique. I wasn't examining what I believe to be free, I was checking our tree against what the FSF agrees to be free. Thus, my note about this license needing to be audited by the FSF. :) ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From tibbs at math.uh.edu Fri Aug 4 14:48:19 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:48:19 -0500 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <1154700865.13057.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Tom Callaway's message of "Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:14:25 -0500") References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> <1154700436.13057.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44D35589.9060101@fedoraproject.org> <1154700865.13057.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: >>>>> "TC" == Tom Callaway writes: TC> While I don't disagree with you, it is unique. I wasn't examining TC> what I believe to be free, I was checking our tree against what TC> the FSF agrees to be free. I would figure the Open Source Definition would apply: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php Still, two things immediately bother me about the license: --- III. SCOPE OF LICENSE Mere aggregation of Public Use works or a portion of a Public Use work with other works or programs on the same media shall not cause this license to apply to those other works. The aggregate work shall contain a notice specifying the inclusion of the Public Use material and appropriate copyright notice. --- The last sentence is troubling because it's not immediately clear what satisfies it. Does merely including a copy of the license as a package would normally do suffice? In addition: --- IV. REQUIREMENTS ON MODIFIED WORKS All modified versions of documents covered by this license, including translations, anthologies, compilations and partial documents, must meet the following requirements: 1. The modified version must be labeled as such. 2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the modifications dated. --- So are anonymous modifications permitted? It would seem to be overly restrictive otherwise. - J< From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Aug 4 14:54:44 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:54:44 -0500 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> <1154700436.13057.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44D35589.9060101@fedoraproject.org> <1154700865.13057.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1154703284.13057.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 09:48 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "TC" == Tom Callaway writes: > > TC> While I don't disagree with you, it is unique. I wasn't examining > TC> what I believe to be free, I was checking our tree against what > TC> the FSF agrees to be free. > > I would figure the Open Source Definition would apply: > http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php Keep in mind: I was asked to audit Fedora Core to ensure that everything in Fedora Core had a Free Software Foundation compatible and approved "Free license". Fedora Extras is still using the Open Source Definition to determine license applicability. If selinux-doc was in Extras, it would be OK. > The last sentence is troubling because it's not immediately clear what > satisfies it. Does merely including a copy of the license as a > package would normally do suffice? Probably, along with the notation that some of the included material in the merged document set was under that license. > So are anonymous modifications permitted? It would seem to be overly > restrictive otherwise. Probably not, but this is not terribly unusual. See the Linux kernel. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From tibbs at math.uh.edu Fri Aug 4 15:08:53 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 10:08:53 -0500 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <1154703284.13057.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Tom Callaway's message of "Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:54:44 -0500") References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> <1154700436.13057.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44D35589.9060101@fedoraproject.org> <1154700865.13057.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1154703284.13057.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: >>>>> "TC" == Tom Callaway writes: TC> I was asked to audit Fedora Core to ensure that everything in TC> Fedora Core had a Free Software Foundation compatible and approved TC> "Free license". Sorry, I think I was added to this list after the start of this thread. >> So are anonymous modifications permitted? It would seem to be >> overly restrictive otherwise. TC> Probably not, but this is not terribly unusual. See the Linux TC> kernel. I don't see how that applies. Yes, I must identify myself in order for my changes to be accepted into Linus's tree (and meet various coding standards and such), but my freedom is not restricted because I'm still allowed to anonymously modify and redistribute as long as I comply with the GPL. Under this license I am not, or so it seems. Or, to put it another way, a license would definitely not be considered free if it restricted modifications to those upholding a certain coding standard, yet the Linux kernel requires adherence to standards for acceptance into the main tree and is not any less free because ot it. - J< From mspevack at redhat.com Fri Aug 4 15:25:32 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:25:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] dropping helix player from fc6 Message-ID: >From last Board meeting: * JeremyKatz and BillNottingham will check with Jonathan Blandford about dropping HelixPlayer from Core. Did we get any conclusion on this? Thanks, Max From tibbs at math.uh.edu Fri Aug 4 15:30:03 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 10:30:03 -0500 Subject: [fab] dropping helix player from fc6 In-Reply-To: (Max Spevack's message of "Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:25:32 -0400 (EDT)") References: Message-ID: >>>>> "MS" == Max Spevack writes: MS> Did we get any conclusion on this? I thought it had been dropped. It's up for Extras review at the moment. - J< From notting at redhat.com Fri Aug 4 15:32:49 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:32:49 -0400 Subject: [fab] dropping helix player from fc6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060804153249.GA4044@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Jason L Tibbitts III (tibbs at math.uh.edu) said: > >>>>> "MS" == Max Spevack writes: > > MS> Did we get any conclusion on this? > > I thought it had been dropped. It's up for Extras review at the > moment. Yeah, it's gone. Bill From mspevack at redhat.com Fri Aug 4 15:35:28 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:35:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] dropping helix player from fc6 In-Reply-To: <20060804153249.GA4044@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20060804153249.GA4044@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> I thought it had been dropped. It's up for Extras review at the >> moment. > > Yeah, it's gone. Excellent! Sorry I missed it. --Max -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From stickster at gmail.com Fri Aug 4 15:37:23 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:37:23 -0400 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> <1154700436.13057.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44D35589.9060101@fedoraproject.org> <1154700865.13057.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1154703284.13057.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1154705843.26088.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 10:08 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >> So are anonymous modifications permitted? It would seem to be > >> overly restrictive otherwise. > > TC> Probably not, but this is not terribly unusual. See the Linux > TC> kernel. > > I don't see how that applies. Yes, I must identify myself in order > for my changes to be accepted into Linus's tree (and meet various > coding standards and such), but my freedom is not restricted because > I'm still allowed to anonymously modify and redistribute as long as I > comply with the GPL. Under this license I am not, or so it seems. > > Or, to put it another way, a license would definitely not be > considered free if it restricted modifications to those upholding a > certain coding standard, yet the Linux kernel requires adherence to > standards for acceptance into the main tree and is not any less free > because ot it. Your analysis is incorrect, insofar as positing that the clause in question makes this license non-free. Case in point: the Open Publication License with no optional clauses is considered a free (documentation) license by the FSF[1], but it contains a verbatim copy of the clause in question. (It also includes a verbatim copy of the inclusion clause you cited earlier, and from reading over both of them, I wouldn't be surprised if one was the basis for the other.) In any case, license proliferation is annoying. :-) [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From kwade at redhat.com Fri Aug 4 16:06:42 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:06:42 -0700 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <1154705843.26088.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> <1154700436.13057.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44D35589.9060101@fedoraproject.org> <1154700865.13057.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1154703284.13057.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1154705843.26088.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1154707603.2567.237.camel@erato.phig.org> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 11:37 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Case in point: the Open > Publication License with no optional clauses is considered a free > (documentation) license by the FSF[1], but it contains a verbatim copy > of the clause in question. (It also includes a verbatim copy of the > inclusion clause you cited earlier, and from reading over both of them, > I wouldn't be surprised if one was the basis for the other.) Yep, I noticed that right away; it seems to be a very close variant on the OPL. > In any > case, license proliferation is annoying. :-) Perhaps the NSA can let us know why this PUL was created instead of using the existing OPL. If the GPL is good enough for government work, why not the OPL? - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From kwade at redhat.com Fri Aug 4 16:07:29 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:07:29 -0700 Subject: [fab] dropping helix player from fc6 In-Reply-To: References: <20060804153249.GA4044@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1154707649.2567.239.camel@erato.phig.org> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 11:35 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > >> I thought it had been dropped. It's up for Extras review at the > >> moment. > > > > Yeah, it's gone. > > Excellent! Sorry I missed it. Man, I don't think none of us are going to be missing it. - Karsten, "ouch" :) -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tibbs at math.uh.edu Fri Aug 4 16:11:45 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:11:45 -0500 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <1154705843.26088.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Paul W. Frields's message of "Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:37:23 -0400") References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> <1154700436.13057.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44D35589.9060101@fedoraproject.org> <1154700865.13057.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1154703284.13057.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1154705843.26088.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: >>>>> "PWF" == Paul W Frields writes: PWF> Your analysis is incorrect, insofar as positing that the clause PWF> in question makes this license non-free. I never said it made the license non-free; I only said that the clause in question was troubling. But I'm happy that (according to the FSF, at least) it's not an issue. - J< From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Aug 4 16:22:54 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:22:54 -0500 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <1154707603.2567.237.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154613726.2567.159.camel@erato.phig.org> <1154700436.13057.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44D35589.9060101@fedoraproject.org> <1154700865.13057.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1154703284.13057.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1154705843.26088.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1154707603.2567.237.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <1154708574.13057.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 09:06 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > Perhaps the NSA can let us know why this PUL was created instead of > using the existing OPL. If the GPL is good enough for government work, > why not the OPL? FWIW, all government code is automagically Public Domain, so technically, GPL is not good enough. ;) ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Aug 4 22:13:43 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:13:43 -0500 Subject: [fab] Free software and Fedora: Dissected Message-ID: <1154729623.13057.138.camel@localhost.localdomain> Here is the latest status update on the FSF Free Software audit of Fedora: * Most of netpbm has been cleared up, except for two subprograms ( pbmtolps and spottopgm). I suggest that we ship a modified source version of netpbm with those two unlicensed subprograms removed, as I have been unable to locate the authors. To the best of my ability, nothing is using pbmtolps or spottopgm. * symlinks is fine, the author describes it as "Totally free software, no restrictions or obligations whatsoever." to clarify the copyright of "freely distributable". * I created a version of aspell-nl that is GPL to replace the one with the icky license. Needs to be tested. * crypto-utils relies on code under the PGP license, which has commercial use restrictions and is almost certainly not FSF compatible. Nothing requires crypto-utils, so it should be flushed. * I've emailed Alexandre to have the FSF provide formal decisions on the 6 licenses in the "KNOWN UNKNOWNS" We should go ahead and start resolving the "KNOWNS", and yes, I do know that FC6 is almost done, but with at least one package (aspell-nl) we are currently violating the license on, and macutils can't legally be "sold without permission" of Brown University. Updated Document: I am in the process of analyzing the packages currently in Fedora Core Development to see whether it is possible/feasible to have Fedora Core exist as a 100% free distribution (by the FSF guidelines). I've spent the last several days classifying and auditing everything, which is a very time consuming process. Thankfully, most things are checking out OK, but there are some packages remaining. I swear, if I never see the word "distributable" again....the vast majority of the "distributable" packages are either BSD or MIT/X11 (libdhcp4client and lv are actually GPL). This report serves two purposes: 1. To provide a status report on my progress (so no one assumes I am sleeping on this task) 2. To highlight the items that need to be immediately addressed either by the FSF or Fedora. As it stands RIGHT NOW, this is where I am: THE UNKNOWNS (0): Packages of questionable licenses that I have yet to fully analyze: ####################################################################### PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes ####################################################################### THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS (6): Packages of questionable licenses that need to be blessed or damned by the FSF: ####################################################################### PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes ####################################################################### cleanfeed || distributable || Can't sell it? (8) ImageMagick-* || freeware || Examine LICENSE lha || freeware || Translated license (2) libc-client-* || U of W Free Fork || Examine CPYRIGHT (3) selinux-doc || Public Use License || Examine LICENSE (4) xorg-x11-proto-devel || The Open Group || Examine SGIGLX license (5) THE KNOWNS (5): Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely) ####################################################################### PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes ####################################################################### aspell-nl || distributable || Can't make changes (6) ckermit || Special || Nothing depends on it crypto-utils || Various || Multiple licenses (9) macutils || distributable || Complicated (10) netpbm-* || freeware || Complicated (1) openmotif-* || Open Group Public || NOT FSF Compatible (7) Everything else in Fedora Core checks out with an FSF compatible license. More to come, stay tuned. :) Side notes: (1): Netpbm and friends are a huge mess of mixed code, some without attribution. Starting with the excellent copyright analysis done by Debian, found here: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/netpbm-free/netpbm-free_10.0-8sarge3/netpbm.copyright In addition, the LZW patent has expired, so ppmtogif is ok. Fedora Core's netpbm-progs package doesn't have jbigtopnm or pnmtojbig (although, they are still in the SRPM). The badly licensed hpcdtoppm isn't in the Fedora package in either source or binary format. This only leaves the bits that are listed in the Debian copyright as "Unknown, So Not Distributed". So, lets try to resolve those: pamchannel: Public Domain (OK) pamtopnm: Public Domain (OK) pbmto4425: Author says GPL. pbmtoln03: Author says Artistic. pbmtolps: Cannot find current email for author. pbmtopk/pktopbm/ppmtopjxl: Author says MIT/X11 license. spottopgm: Cannot find current email for author I suggest that we ship a modified source version of netpbm with those two unlicensed subprograms removed, as I have been unable to locate the authors. To the best of my ability, nothing is using pbmtolps or spottopgm. (2): LHA's license needs to be audited by the FSF Original Authors License Statement (from man/lha.man and translated by Osamu Aoki ): Permission is given for redistribution, copy and modification provided following conditions are met. 1. Do not remove copyright clause. 2. Distribution shall conform: a. The content of redistribution (i.e., source code, documentation and reference guide for programmers) shall include original contents. If contents are modified and the document clearly indicating the fact of modification must be included. b. If LHa is redistributed with added values and you must put your best effort to include them (Translator comment: If read literally and original Japanese was unclear what ?them? means here. But undoubtedly this ?them? means source code for the added value portion and this is a typical Japanese sloppy writing style to abbreviate as such) Also the document clearly indicating that added value was added must be included. c. Binary only distribution is not allowed (including added value ones.) 3. You need to put effort to distribute the latest version (This is not your duty). NB: Distribution ON Internet is free. Please notify me by e-mail or other means prior to the distribution if distribution is done through non-Internet media (Magazine and CDROM etc.) If not and make sure to Email me later. 4. Any damage caused by the existence and use of this PROGRAM will not be compensated. 5. Author will not be responsible to correct errors even if PROGRAM is defective. 6. This PROGRAM, either as a part of this or as a whole of this and may be included into other programs. In this case and that PROGRAM is not LHa and can not call itself LHa. 7. For commercial use, in addition to above conditions and following condition needs to be met. a. The PROGRAM whose content is mainly this PROGRAM can not be used commercially. b. If the recipient of commercial use deems inappropriate as a PROGRAM user, you must not distribute. c. If used as a method for the installation and you must not force others to use this PROGRAM. In this case, commercial user will perform its work while taking FULL responsibility of its outcome. d. If added value is done under the commercial use by using this PROGRAM, commercial user shall provide its support. (Osamu Aoki also comments: Here ?commercial? may be interpreted as ?for-fee?. ?Added value? seems to mean ?feature enhancement?. ) Translated License Statement by Tsugio Okamoto (translated by GOTO Masanori ): It's free to distribute ON the network and but if you distribute for the people who cannot access the network (by magazine or CD-ROM), please send E-Mail (Inter-Net address) to the author before the distribution. That's well where this software is appeard. If you cannot do and you must send me the E-Mail later. Nothing in Fedora Core requires lha, I'd say it should be moved to Extras. (3): The University of Washington Free-Fork License is VERY weird. It's mostly OK, but then it goes off into left field. The FSF will need to decide if its too much or not. If we need to move this to Fedora Extras, then php-imap will have to be enabled in the php-extras Extras package, but this should be a pretty easy switch (and php-imap is the only dependent package). Also, CPYRIGHT is not a typo. (4): There is a LICENSE file in the source tree. This needs to be reviewed by the FSF to determine if it is kosher. (5): xorg-x11-proto-devel claims it is under "The Open Group License", which is just MIT/X11, however, it also includes GLX headers that are under the SGI GLX license. The SGI GLX license can be found here: http://www.sgi.com/software/opensource/glx/license.html (6): The Copyright in the aspell-nl source tree says: "All provided material can be used freely. Copying is only allowed if the package is distributed complete and unchanged. We plan to update the package on a regular basis. Bug reports and bugfixes are welcomed." This license doesn't permit modified redistribution, so this is right out. On top of that, Fedora _IS_ patching it, so we're in violation. Debian is using an aspell-nl package under GPL with different source, I made a package for it here: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/aspell-nl-0.1e-1.src.rpm I suggest we replace this in Core ASAP. (7): Yeah, its time to let Motif go. The license here is obviously not FSF compatible. In Fedora Core development, this has four dependent packages (a lot more in Extras, so we probably can't nuke it from orbit): - ddd (nothing depends on it, should go to FE) - tetex-xdvi (if we pass --with-xdvi-x-toolkit=xaw to configure, we eliminate the motif dependency) - xpdf (nothing seems to explicitly depend on it, with evince around, this can probably go to FE) - mesa-libGLw (this guy is hard. we could disable motif support for this library, but as Bugzilla 175251 points out, it is kindof worthless without it. Also does not seem to be trivial to move into its own subpackage, but nothing in Core requires it. X11 team needs to fix this one.) (8): Cleanfeed's license reads: LICENSE This software may be distributed freely, provided it is intact (including all the files from the original archive). You may modify it, and you may distribute your modified version, provided the original work is credited to the appropriate authors, and your work is credited to you (don?t make changes and pass them off as my work), and that you aren?t charging for it. FSF needs to yay or nay that last part about "not charging for it". Nothing depends on cleanfeed. (9): Crypto-utils has: - librand (AT&T BSD, OK) - Makerand (Author confirms GPL or Artistic) - keyrand (PGP license found here: ftp://ftp.pgpi.org/pub/pgp/2.x/doc/pgpdoc2.txt) (10): macutils has: no license, no copyright, but code it was based on was (c) 1984 Brown University * may be used but not sold without permission Nothing depends on this, it should be dropped. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From toshio at tiki-lounge.com Fri Aug 4 22:30:09 2006 From: toshio at tiki-lounge.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:30:09 -0700 Subject: [fab] Free software and Fedora: Dissected In-Reply-To: <1154729623.13057.138.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1154729623.13057.138.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1154730609.2978.6.camel@localhost> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 17:13 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > Updated Document: > > I am in the process of analyzing the packages currently in Fedora Core > Development to see whether it is possible/feasible to have Fedora Core > exist as a 100% free distribution (by the FSF guidelines). On IRC, someone claimed that gnuplot was not FSF clean (but is OSI approved) because it requires the upstream tarball to be pristine; changes to the source have to be distributed as patches. Have you checked its license? http://gnuplot.cvs.sourceforge.net/gnuplot/gnuplot/Copyright?view=markup -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Aug 4 22:40:04 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:40:04 -0500 Subject: [fab] Free software and Fedora: Dissected In-Reply-To: <1154730609.2978.6.camel@localhost> References: <1154729623.13057.138.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1154730609.2978.6.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1154731204.13057.140.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 15:30 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 17:13 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > Updated Document: > > > > I am in the process of analyzing the packages currently in Fedora Core > > Development to see whether it is possible/feasible to have Fedora Core > > exist as a 100% free distribution (by the FSF guidelines). > > On IRC, someone claimed that gnuplot was not FSF clean (but is OSI > approved) because it requires the upstream tarball to be pristine; > changes to the source have to be distributed as patches. Have you > checked its license? > > http://gnuplot.cvs.sourceforge.net/gnuplot/gnuplot/Copyright?view=markup David Turner (@ FSF) says it is fine, and we're in compliance with the license as it is written. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From gdk at redhat.com Mon Aug 7 03:13:01 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 23:13:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Correspondence from a wandering board member Message-ID: :) He's right about the distribution problem, of course. The statements about RMS are interesting as well. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 20:44:25 -0500 From: Elliot Lee To: gdk at redhat.com Subject: Pass it on Hey Greg, Had dinner on Thursday night with a crazy software developer who is trying to translate free software (starting with AbiWord) into the Quecha (the language used by the Incas, and approximately 8 million people today). Thought I should jot down a few insights and pass them along before I forgot... . gettext?s model of having English as the "master" language is a real problem when the translators do not speak English, and shuts out translations for a bunch of native languages where English was not the language of the conquerors/colonists. In this case, the translators know Spanish and Quecha, but not English, so they cannot make sense of the .po file that has English phrases as the keys for the Quecha translations. . The problem of distribution is real - I think we know this but don't always understand how bad it is. It is a big pain for me to even get net access here while travelling, and apparently dialup costs something like $35 per mo plus per minute for phone service, plus ISP charges. No idea how much DSL costs - mucho dinero. In particular, the problem of needing to connect to the Internet for downloading updates and new packages was raised. We need to support the ability to configure a local package repository into the distro and into yum, and make it easy to turn downloaded packages into a local package repository that can be served to other computers on an ad-hoc basis. Is OLPC going to help at all in this regards? . RMS is a lot bigger down here because people buy into his political views. That is probably the best argument for making Fedora have the free software stamp - it wil buy us friends in countries where the free software message is popular. Anyways, pass those along to the board if they are worth anything, and say hello for me. I have a Fedora talk this Wednesday in Lima, should be cool. Everything is going great here. Lots of pictures, very few of which I am managing to get onto my blog so far. It's an order of magnitude harder to get basic computing tasks done here when you have to walk down the street in order to use a web browser on a Windows PC with no SCP access. :) Best, -- Elliot From blizzard at redhat.com Mon Aug 7 12:33:14 2006 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 08:33:14 -0400 Subject: [fab] Correspondence from a wandering board member In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44D7330A.1020804@redhat.com> Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > . gettext?s model of having English as the "master" language is a real > problem when the translators do not speak English, and shuts out > translations for a bunch of native languages where English was not the > language of the conquerors/colonists. In this case, the translators know > Spanish and Quecha, but not English, so they cannot make sense of the .po > file that has English phrases as the keys for the Quecha translations. > > . The problem of distribution is real - I think we know this but don't > always understand how bad it is. It is a big pain for me to even get net > access here while travelling, and apparently dialup costs something like $35 > per mo plus per minute for phone service, plus ISP charges. No idea how much > DSL costs - mucho dinero. In particular, the problem of needing to connect > to the Internet for downloading updates and new packages was raised. We need > to support the ability to configure a local package repository into the > distro and into yum, and make it easy to turn downloaded packages into a > local package repository that can be served to other computers on an ad-hoc > basis. Is OLPC going to help at all in this regards? Yeah, this is a symptom of a few problems with the way that rpms work today. You can't tell what's an app, you can't translate outside of the rpm (at least, not without some deep hacks) and everything requires "outside" (read: another repo) access to solve dependency problems and to get apps. So for OLPC what I've wanted to do is to enforce a few rules: 1. The Base OS is an image, not a set of RPMs. This means that instead of everyone having to go upstream to get updates, you get a binary delta. This assumes that 1. the base image doesn't change across machines and that 2. people don't add software to that base image. Given the way that we work today, this is hard. Which leads us to... 2. That the applications that a user installs are not part of the base system. They are installed somewhere else that's not /usr/bin, probably in a user's home directory somewhere. What does this mean? This means that you can safely update or replace the operating system without hosing the user's applications. It also enables binary updates, copying the updates from machine to machine instead of having to reach upstream, etc. It also enables one of the most important things: applications can be given from person to person. See above about ISPs being expensive. Why use an ISP when you can just give it to your friend directly? Cuts costs, builds communities and is something that other operating systems just can't do. The important rule has to be that the same image you use to install an application is the same that you use to run it. In the real world an RPM is not related to whatever you have on disk. 3. User data is separate from the apps. In the classic world this means /etc is clearly separated. In our app's case, it's not that different from the direction a lot of stuff is going because of gconf and dbus and hal. But you shouldn't have to go into /etc to make a program work right and root access is never the answer. So using this model above a lot of things fall out of it: o Applications can be translated after the fact. As he points out above, this is really important to a large part of the world. It's also the key to making translations scale. Right now we have to get an entire rpm in order to get any of the translations. What this means as that the number of translations grows, the amount that everyone pays grows with time. You could suggest "adding an rpm per translation" but that sounds pretty hacky to me. It would be great if the translations for a program were separated from the app itself. o We can get a real platform. Somewhere to start, some base for ISVs to assume is there. We can get away with this in OLPC because we have space constraints that require us to make decisions. But the current world of Linux distributions is that there's lots of disk and lots of memory so people aren't forced to make decisions about what to include in a base image and what's not. In fact, there is no base image. And now we have a 5 CD base install requirement. There is no platform, there is only everything. --Chris From kwade at redhat.com Mon Aug 7 13:35:42 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:35:42 -0700 Subject: [fab] Correspondence from a wandering board member In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1154957742.26127.22.camel@erato.phig.org> On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 23:13 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > . gettexts model of having English as the "master" language is a real > problem when the translators do not speak English, and shuts out > translations for a bunch of native languages where English was not the > language of the conquerors/colonists. In this case, the translators know > Spanish and Quecha, but not English, so they cannot make sense of the .po > file that has English phrases as the keys for the Quecha translations. I've been wondering about the Lingua Franca problem, but mainly from a perspective of documentation, where the original (source) and target languages might have nothing to do with English. I wonder if a short-term fix that only addresses the master language situation might help. We could create a Web app in the translator's workspace that lets them pick a set of packages and have a POT file created from a different language. Paul -- do you think this might work? It would be very interesting. We would have to chain the trust for editing. That is, the Quecha team would use the Spanish translation as the master, so they would rely upon the quality of the English -> Spanish. The Spanish team would have to be aware that they were now an upstream POT-file for another language, and have a process of how to respond. Theoretically, we could have a trust model so that I know, when I see the Quecha translations as "all green", I know that i) the Spanish -> Quecha is QA'd and ready, and ii) that only occurs *after* the English -> Spanish is QA'd and ready. Cascading changes would be a pain. A typo fix in the original would have to trigger a notice to the Spanish and Quecha teams, with the latter waiting for the Spanish team to commit a new translation fix before proceeding. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From gdk at redhat.com Mon Aug 7 22:25:18 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 18:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Fedora Logo Proposal Message-ID: OK, we've danced around this for a while. Lots of good suggestions, but no one has really taken ownership of this -- largely because it's kind of hard to do, especially if you're not @redhat.com. So I sat down with Max today and we worked through some of the issues. We came up with a proposal to settle these issues once and for all. The goal is to have an actionable plan, that everyone agrees with, that we can implement quickly. If everyone agrees, I'll take it to counsel asap and we'll work out details. * * * The Basic Issues: There are two sets of issues. One set revolves around TRADEMARK PROTECTION. The other set revolves around POLICY OF USE. The two are related, but they are not the same. First of all, TRADEMARK PROTECTION. Because the Fedora logo is a registered trademark, this means that we must protect it -- specifically, that we must "police" it. What do we mean when we say "police" it? Simply, it means that we have guidelines for its use, and we're actually pursuing people who use the logo without adhering to the guidelines. Now, it's my understanding that these guidelines can be as liberal as we choose to make them, so long as (a) the guidelines are enforceable, and (b) we actually make the effort to enforce them. These guidelines are our POLICY OF USE. We've been arguing about this problem for months because it's a hard problem; our POLICY goal is to make the logo as ubiquitous as possible, but our LEGAL goal is to make the logo as easily policed as possible. These goals are to some degree contradictory. The key, we believe, is to make it as simple as possible to navigate through the guidelines -- even if the guidelines themselves are not simple. * * * Deliverable #0: Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). It all starts here. We need to nail down *exactly* what usages of the logo are allowed, and exactly what usages are not allowed. This may take further debate, but here's a start: LOGO USE AND SOFTWARE REDISTRIUBTION. The logo may be used by: * Anyone who redistributes Fedora Core as-is. No permission required. * Anyone who redistributes any functionally complete subset of packages from the Fedora Universe -- also known as an "official Fedora derivative". No permission required. * People who are redistributing something based on Fedora, but who are NOT following the above redistribution guidelines, may NOT use the Fedora logo. If they choose to use the text "based on Fedora," we won't stop them. LOGO USE FOR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES. The logo may be used by: * WEBSITE USE. Anyone who is using Fedora or its official Fedora derivatives may advertise this fact using the Fedora logo. * SCHWAG. Only members of the Fedora Ambassadors project may put the Fedora logo on physical promotional items. MISCELLANEOUS USES. If a user wishes to use the logo for a reason not enumerated, users may appeal directly to "logo at fedoraproject.org" for special dispensation to use the Fedora logo. * * * Deliverable #1: Fedora Logo Wizard. We'll develop our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) based on simple questions and a decision tree. Something like this: (clippy) I see you'd like to use the Fedora logo! Would you like some help? Are you redistributing Fedora? (yes) Have you modified any of the ISO images in any way? (no) Approved! (Logo_usage_ok_distribution) (yes) Did you make unacceptable change #1? (yes) Sorry, you can not use the Fedora logo, but... (Based_on_Fedora) (no) Did you make unacceptable change #2? (yes) Sorry, you can not use the Fedora logo, but... (Based_on_Fedora) (no) Did you make unacceptable change #n? (yes) Sorry... (no) Approved! (Logo_usage_ok_modification) (no) Are you promoting Fedora? (yes) Are you using the Fedora logo to sell goods? ...and so on and so forth. Basically, we should be able to ask a set of questions that lead the requestors to *precise* policy decisions. We should then collect their information in a simple database (read: flat text file). Whenever we see a questionable use, we refer to the "database" and act accordingly. * * * Deliverable #2: A "click through" for access to Fedora logo files. See, the problem here is that having a click-through for Fedora logos is basically useless. The simple fact is, people can go get Fedora logos from dozens of websites, or from the desktop itself, and they can make something that looks, for all the world, like an official Fedora logo. Therefore, it makes no sense to have a click-through to gain access to the "official logos" themselves. Better, we think, is to have one prominent page where all of the logo files live. At the very front of that page, we'd place a great big notice, impossible to miss: "Want to use these logos? Be sure to agree to THE SIMPLE TERMS (link). If you don't and we find out about it, we will ask you to stop using the logos. Why? Read more about TRADEMARK PROTECTION (link)." And then pages and pages of spiffy Fedora logos and official variants. * * * Deliverable #3: A Fedora Logo Project. This is beginning to look like a must-have. Everybody wants to play around with the logo for various reasons, all of them perfectly good reasons. They want a "powered by Fedora" button for their web server. Or they want a Fedora theme that incorporates their LUG logo as well. When we find a modified Fedora logo, here are our choices: 1. ignore it, in which case we're not policing the mark; 2. prohibit it, in which case we look like fascists; or 3. adopt it or explain in a friendly way why it's not appropriate. Option 3 is by far the best, but it requires a body that can serve effectively as arbiters, and is empowered to do so. My guess: this would be a subproject of the Fedora Art project. * * * Anyway, that's the proposal. If you have an objection, please be as specific as you can possibly be. We want to take action on this soon. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From stickster at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 23:25:57 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:25:57 -0400 Subject: [fab] Correspondence from a wandering board member In-Reply-To: <1154957742.26127.22.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <1154957742.26127.22.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <1154993157.15301.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 06:35 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 23:13 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > . gettexts model of having English as the "master" language is a real > > problem when the translators do not speak English, and shuts out > > translations for a bunch of native languages where English was not the > > language of the conquerors/colonists. In this case, the translators know > > Spanish and Quecha, but not English, so they cannot make sense of the .po > > file that has English phrases as the keys for the Quecha translations. > > I've been wondering about the Lingua Franca problem, but mainly from a > perspective of documentation, where the original (source) and target > languages might have nothing to do with English. > > I wonder if a short-term fix that only addresses the master language > situation might help. We could create a Web app in the translator's > workspace that lets them pick a set of packages and have a POT file > created from a different language. > > Paul -- do you think this might work? The concept seems sound to me, with the caveats you mention below: > It would be very interesting. We would have to chain the trust for > editing. That is, the Quecha team would use the Spanish translation as > the master, so they would rely upon the quality of the English -> > Spanish. The Spanish team would have to be aware that they were now an > upstream POT-file for another language, and have a process of how to > respond. > > Theoretically, we could have a trust model so that I know, when I see > the Quecha translations as "all green", I know that i) the Spanish -> > Quecha is QA'd and ready, and ii) that only occurs *after* the English > -> Spanish is QA'd and ready. > > Cascading changes would be a pain. A typo fix in the original would > have to trigger a notice to the Spanish and Quecha teams, with the > latter waiting for the Spanish team to commit a new translation fix > before proceeding. Not really any more painful than the current setup, right? At least, the only pain is a potential delay, and not a breakage. This seems to me like a process that scales pretty well, since it's doubtful the chain would get too long. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 23:30:51 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:30:51 -0400 Subject: [fab] linux-respin.org followup In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1154993451.15301.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 10:01 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > gdk and I managed to get in touch with the guy who runs the site. He sent > us both an email that's waiting in our inboxes this morning. > > It's fairly long, so I need to read through it carefully, but I just > wanted to let people know that we made contact, and we'll go from there. > > Further updates and events warrant. Any warranted updates? I was reminded of this thread thanks to gdk's post on the Logo guidelines today. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From notting at redhat.com Mon Aug 7 23:32:33 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:32:33 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora Logo Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060807233233.GA27495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Greg DeKoenigsberg (gdk at redhat.com) said: > Anyway, that's the proposal. If you have an objection, please be as > specific as you can possibly be. We want to take action on this soon. How would these terms relate to Diana's and M?ir?n's gimp/photo stuff? It's neither schwag, nor website, nor a distribution itself. Does this fall under 'things approved by Fedora Art'? Bill From stickster at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 23:42:12 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:42:12 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora Logo Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1154994132.15301.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 18:25 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > OK, we've danced around this for a while. Lots of good suggestions, but > no one has really taken ownership of this -- largely because it's kind of > hard to do, especially if you're not @redhat.com. > > So I sat down with Max today and we worked through some of the issues. We > came up with a proposal to settle these issues once and for all. The goal > is to have an actionable plan, that everyone agrees with, that we can > implement quickly. > > If everyone agrees, I'll take it to counsel asap and we'll work out > details. This looked pretty good to me... a couple issues following: > Deliverable #0: Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). > > It all starts here. We need to nail down *exactly* what usages of the > logo are allowed, and exactly what usages are not allowed. This may take > further debate, but here's a start: > > LOGO USE AND SOFTWARE REDISTRIUBTION. The logo may be used by: > * Anyone who redistributes Fedora Core as-is. No permission required. > * Anyone who redistributes any functionally complete subset of packages > from the Fedora Universe -- also known as an "official Fedora derivative". > No permission required. > * People who are redistributing something based on Fedora, but who are > NOT following the above redistribution guidelines, may NOT use the Fedora > logo. If they choose to use the text "based on Fedora," we won't stop > them. > > LOGO USE FOR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES. The logo may be used by: > * WEBSITE USE. Anyone who is using Fedora or its official Fedora > derivatives may advertise this fact using the Fedora logo. > * SCHWAG. Only members of the Fedora Ambassadors project may put the > Fedora logo on physical promotional items. > > MISCELLANEOUS USES. If a user wishes to use the logo for a reason not > enumerated, users may appeal directly to "logo at fedoraproject.org" for > special dispensation to use the Fedora logo. There are logo usage guidelines on the Wiki that you may want to look at. Some of them may make it harder for people to use the logo in an attractive, individual, and aesthetically pleasing manner. Should those guidelines, or a revision thereof, be part of this policy? Can they be revised, and if so, who has the authority to do it? > Deliverable #1: Fedora Logo Wizard. > > We'll develop our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) based on simple questions > and a decision tree. Something like this: > (clippy) I see you'd like to use the Fedora logo! Would you like some > help? Neat. The click-through should make it clear -- on every question, if need be -- that the click-through's failure to address a situation does not mean you get to automatically use the logo. > Deliverable #3: A Fedora Logo Project. > > This is beginning to look like a must-have. Everybody wants to play > around with the logo for various reasons, all of them perfectly good > reasons. They want a "powered by Fedora" button for their web server. Or > they want a Fedora theme that incorporates their LUG logo as well. > > When we find a modified Fedora logo, here are our choices: 1. ignore it, > in which case we're not policing the mark; 2. prohibit it, in which case > we look like fascists; or 3. adopt it or explain in a friendly way why > it's not appropriate. Option 3 is by far the best, but it requires a body > that can serve effectively as arbiters, and is empowered to do so. > > My guess: this would be a subproject of the Fedora Art project. Sounds good. There's already been one or two "unofficial logos" proposed there that were (IMHO) really hideous. Letting the good guys use the real logos in acceptable ways should head off the need for people to mutate what I think is a pretty good design into something awful. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 23:48:49 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:48:49 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora Logo Proposal In-Reply-To: <20060807233233.GA27495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20060807233233.GA27495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1154994529.15301.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 19:32 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Greg DeKoenigsberg (gdk at redhat.com) said: > > Anyway, that's the proposal. If you have an objection, please be as > > specific as you can possibly be. We want to take action on this soon. > > How would these terms relate to Diana's and M?ir?n's gimp/photo stuff? It's > neither schwag, nor website, nor a distribution itself. Does this fall under > 'things approved by Fedora Art'? Darn it, I meant to write something about this in my last reply too. We need to address the licensing issue for this stuff too in the acceptable use policy. Perhaps we could make the acceptance hinge on the licensing for the art? I think everyone would probably agree that any Creative Commons "NC" is not free enough (probably "ND" as well), but what about "BY" and/or "SA"? Are there other licenses that work well for art? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From notting at redhat.com Tue Aug 8 00:24:47 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:24:47 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora Logo Proposal In-Reply-To: <1154994529.15301.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060807233233.GA27495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1154994529.15301.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060808002447.GB27916@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Paul W. Frields (stickster at gmail.com) said: > I think everyone would probably agree that any Creative Commons "NC" is > not free enough (probably "ND" as well), but what about "BY" and/or > "SA"? Are there other licenses that work well for art? The problem is that each individual piece of artwork needs to come under the trademark guidelines, *in addtion to* whatever CC (or similar) license is used. Bill From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Aug 8 00:49:27 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:49:27 -0400 Subject: [fab] JBJ considered harmfull Message-ID: <200608072049.27252.jkeating@redhat.com> Yet another case of JBJ being offensive: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=143301 Can we please revoke his access to Fedora bugs? -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Aug 8 02:30:11 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:30:11 -0500 Subject: [fab] JBJ considered harmfull In-Reply-To: <200608072049.27252.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608072049.27252.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44D7F733.5090705@math.unl.edu> Jesse Keating wrote: > Yet another case of JBJ being offensive: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=143301 > Can we please revoke his access to Fedora bugs? I think(*) the consensus (of the Board) was that this would likely happen, but only after another "upstream" bugzilla (besides bugzilla.redhat.com) was established for rpm. -- Rex (*) Hopefully I'm not putting words in others' mouths, please speak up otherwise. (: From dennis at ausil.us Tue Aug 8 02:28:40 2006 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:28:40 -0500 Subject: [fab] JBJ considered harmfull In-Reply-To: <44D7F733.5090705@math.unl.edu> References: <200608072049.27252.jkeating@redhat.com> <44D7F733.5090705@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <200608072128.40790.dennis@ausil.us> On Monday 07 August 2006 9:30 pm, Rex Dieter wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > Yet another case of JBJ being offensive: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=143301 > > Can we please revoke his access to Fedora bugs? > > I think(*) the consensus (of the Board) was that this would likely > happen, but only after another "upstream" bugzilla (besides > bugzilla.redhat.com) was established for rpm. > > -- Rex If need be I can find somewhere for a bugzilla.rpm.org to be hosted. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171391 not totally offensive but really not making any sense and he hasn't closed this one yet -- Dennis Gilmore, RHCE Proud Australian From max at spevack.org Tue Aug 8 02:35:21 2006 From: max at spevack.org (Max Spevack) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 22:35:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] JBJ considered harmfull In-Reply-To: <44D7F733.5090705@math.unl.edu> References: <200608072049.27252.jkeating@redhat.com> <44D7F733.5090705@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Rex Dieter wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > Yet another case of JBJ being offensive: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=143301 > > Can we please revoke his access to Fedora bugs? Wow, those comments... > I think(*) the consensus (of the Board) was that this would likely > happen, but only after another "upstream" bugzilla (besides > bugzilla.redhat.com) was established for rpm. > > -- Rex > > (*) Hopefully I'm not putting words in others' mouths, please speak up > otherwise. (: That's accurate. notting and wwoods were going to do some work on solving the issue of bug groups, etc. Where are we with that? --Max -- Max Spevack + http://spevack.org + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue Aug 8 08:22:26 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:22:26 +0200 Subject: [fab] rant: why does it take so long to prepare a firefox update for FC5? Message-ID: <44D849C2.9030505@leemhuis.info> Hi! Firefox 1.5.0.5 was released on July 26, nearly two weeks ago now. It contains very important security fixes AFAICS (an exploit is in the wild AFAIK) but there is still no update for FC5 in sight. What the heck is taking so long? This behavior brings Fedora in discredit because Firefox is a very important package. And it's actually the second time already that it takes so long -- firefox 1.5.0.4 was release as FC5 update on 15 Jun 2006, two weeks after the official release on mozilla.org. This really sucks. Some background details follow: Fixes in Firefox 1.5.0.5: http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/ Our bug, opened 2006-07-27 00:27 EST: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200357 Link to public CVS; updated Firefox was checked in there some days ago, but no new packages showed up yet on the servers AFAICS http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/firefox/FC-5/ RHEL Fix (rated Critical, published Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:16:50 -0400) http://www.redhat.com/archives/enterprise-watch-list/2006-July/msg00021.html Firefox 1.5.0.4 update for FC5: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2006-June/msg00106.html Firefox 1.5.0.4 notes (released June 1, 2006) http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/releases/1.5.0.4 CU thl From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Aug 8 11:30:30 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 07:30:30 -0400 Subject: [fab] rant: why does it take so long to prepare a firefox update for FC5? In-Reply-To: <44D849C2.9030505@leemhuis.info> References: <44D849C2.9030505@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <200608080730.34346.jkeating@redhat.com> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 04:22, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Firefox 1.5.0.5 was released on July 26, nearly two weeks ago now. It > contains very important security fixes AFAICS (an exploit is in the wild > AFAIK) but there is still no update for FC5 in sight. What the heck is > taking so long? This behavior brings Fedora in discredit because Firefox > is a very important package. And it's actually the second time already > that it takes so long -- firefox 1.5.0.4 was release as FC5 update on 15 > Jun 2006, two weeks after the official release on mozilla.org. Unfortunately we have basically one fellow at Red Hat to manage all the mozilla / seamonkey / firefox / thunderbird updates. And he has to manage them from RHEL2.1 all the way through development. He is REALLY overworked. This is one of the cases were it would be really nice to have it in Extras so that somebody else could donate some time to massage the build through. The mozilla suite is very fickle, and tends to fall over if the slightest thing changes. If the build doesn't just succeed it can be a long drawn out process to get it built / tested / releases. Unfortunately we've been in crunch time at work for not only the FC6 Test2 deadline, but the RHEL5 Beta1 deadline too. This meant that the other folks in the Desktop team did not really have a spare cycle to try and process the firefox update. Yes, it sucks. Yes, we could do better. How can the community help? If the patch is in the wild, try to compile with the patch. If the compile fails, fix it, and provide a working patch / srpm in the bug. That way just about any package monkey (like me) could push it through the build system. Also you have to take into account that firefox.org doesn't care about Linux. They produce "updates" that are first Windows precompiled binaries. Their Linux stuff is still in CVS, not even tarball released yet, so we have to try and take a CVS snapshot or troll through CVS logs to find the right patch. They also don't seem to care about vendorsec, or if they do its a token notice and nonsensical embargo dates. The last one I noticed was set to be released in the middle of a global holiday (Easter). They really really suck for trying to work out security updates, especially for Linux where they aren't providing the binaries. They care about what they provide as precompiled clients and nothing else (at least that's how it appears from the outside). This is yet another reason why the security update can take longer than expected and longer after it's public than expected. Not an excuse, just another factor. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stickster at gmail.com Tue Aug 8 13:00:01 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:00:01 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <1155042001.6135.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:22 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > I'm a little concerned by a recent chain of events. Damien Durand recently > decided that running interviews of Fedora contributors was a worthy project > and began working, without support, to make it a reality. This, in itself, > is good. We need people who take initiative. The problem is the subsequent > announcement and adoption without review, and this is just a symptom of a > larger, standing issue. > > As soon as Damien put up a page and interviewed Chitlesh Goorah, he sent an > announcement to fedora-marketing-list and made a post in his blog. Then, > Thomas included the announcement in the Fedora Weekly News report. The > problem is that this program has had no peer review and doesn't have any > support within the Fedora Project. I had instructed Damien to make a post to > fedora-marketing-list to let the Marketing team know what he was working on > and to ask for feedback, not to provide a formal announcement. > > My concern with this particular project is that it is doing something that is > already being done and for which a new venue is not needed. RHM already has > a column that features contributor interviews, and assorted other sources > already allow contributors to be introduced to the community. Without the > interest and resources going into Fedora Interview, I'm not sure it can > really succeed. If the Marketing team adopted the idea and decided to > support it, then we could have given more consideration into what we would > throw behind the program. Another issue is the fact that Damien has not had > the time to correct the issues that have already been pointed out. Moving to > a public announcement was premature. > > This really only highlights and underlying problem. We have a number of new > or inexperienced contributors who are in a hurry to start up their own > initiatives. We already have a significant number of projects that need more > attention, not separation. These new contributors take advantage of the > freedom they are given to stake out grounds without peer support. This is > fracturing our community and leaving all kinds of loose and dead ends. > > Another fine example of this issue is Clair Shaw's Word of Mouth program. > Many of these initiatives are popping up under Ambassadors and Marketing, > simply because the Ambassadors have an immediate sense of involvement and > power, but this problem spreads well beyond those projects. We need to be > flexible in allowing the formation of new programs, but allowing the creation > and branding of new programs without any controls in place will soon dilute > the standings of existing projects and will introduce confusion. > > With these small, unsupported programs popping up everywhere, projects are > fracturing and initiatives are failing. We need to work on tightening > controls and focusing the contributor energy where it is needed. It's time > to consider establishing policies and practices for the formation of new > projects and programs. This needs to happen at two levels. We need policies > for the creation or promotion of projects at the top level, and individual > projects need policies for the formation of sub-projects. If we don't exert > control now, we'll have a hard time regaining it in the future. Is it my imagination, or has this just happened again? http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2006-August/msg00006.html (and others) No mailing list discussions that I can find, IIRC, The last discussion on this issue petered out with most of the discussion centering on whether "Project" should be "Program," or "Team," or "Collective," or "Arbeitgruppe," or whatever. Two "coopetitive" views were put out, I think: 1. The more the merrier, and let evolution weed 'em out. 2. Contributors need to prove they have what it takes to carry the Fedora banner. No one has said much about Patrick's wiki page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects I agreed to drive this project definition problem... My personal viewpoint is that, like logo usage, we want to be generous but protective about the Fedora name. I prefer that the "Ideas" listed in this page be promoted to "SIGs" since not only do we have a couple, but "Ideas" sounds a little dismissive. "SIG" gives the contributors an immediate feeling of group ownership. Once a SIG has more plans they can be owned by an official subproject until they are ready to move on, if that's necessary. Input please? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From barzilay at redhat.com Tue Aug 8 13:14:44 2006 From: barzilay at redhat.com (David Barzilay) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:14:44 -0300 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <1155042001.6135.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1155042001.6135.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44D88E44.9010900@redhat.com> OK, here's my simplistic process overview: 1) Contributor suggests new project to a Steering Committee (talking generally here - devel, ambassadors, etc) 2) Committee discusses it first ok - project idea goes to "help needed" page not ok - standard and careful reply "... project idea is against Fedora's goals as you can see in fedoraproject.org/wiki...." 3) Once the project has at least 3 contributors, it can be named as "Fedora official", then have a dedicated wiki page After all, we still have control over www.fedoraproject.org... Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:22 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > >> I'm a little concerned by a recent chain of events. Damien Durand recently >> decided that running interviews of Fedora contributors was a worthy project >> and began working, without support, to make it a reality. This, in itself, >> is good. We need people who take initiative. The problem is the subsequent >> announcement and adoption without review, and this is just a symptom of a >> larger, standing issue. >> >> As soon as Damien put up a page and interviewed Chitlesh Goorah, he sent an >> announcement to fedora-marketing-list and made a post in his blog. Then, >> Thomas included the announcement in the Fedora Weekly News report. The >> problem is that this program has had no peer review and doesn't have any >> support within the Fedora Project. I had instructed Damien to make a post to >> fedora-marketing-list to let the Marketing team know what he was working on >> and to ask for feedback, not to provide a formal announcement. >> >> My concern with this particular project is that it is doing something that is >> already being done and for which a new venue is not needed. RHM already has >> a column that features contributor interviews, and assorted other sources >> already allow contributors to be introduced to the community. Without the >> interest and resources going into Fedora Interview, I'm not sure it can >> really succeed. If the Marketing team adopted the idea and decided to >> support it, then we could have given more consideration into what we would >> throw behind the program. Another issue is the fact that Damien has not had >> the time to correct the issues that have already been pointed out. Moving to >> a public announcement was premature. >> >> This really only highlights and underlying problem. We have a number of new >> or inexperienced contributors who are in a hurry to start up their own >> initiatives. We already have a significant number of projects that need more >> attention, not separation. These new contributors take advantage of the >> freedom they are given to stake out grounds without peer support. This is >> fracturing our community and leaving all kinds of loose and dead ends. >> >> Another fine example of this issue is Clair Shaw's Word of Mouth program. >> Many of these initiatives are popping up under Ambassadors and Marketing, >> simply because the Ambassadors have an immediate sense of involvement and >> power, but this problem spreads well beyond those projects. We need to be >> flexible in allowing the formation of new programs, but allowing the creation >> and branding of new programs without any controls in place will soon dilute >> the standings of existing projects and will introduce confusion. >> >> With these small, unsupported programs popping up everywhere, projects are >> fracturing and initiatives are failing. We need to work on tightening >> controls and focusing the contributor energy where it is needed. It's time >> to consider establishing policies and practices for the formation of new >> projects and programs. This needs to happen at two levels. We need policies >> for the creation or promotion of projects at the top level, and individual >> projects need policies for the formation of sub-projects. If we don't exert >> control now, we'll have a hard time regaining it in the future. >> > > Is it my imagination, or has this just happened again? > > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2006-August/msg00006.html > (and others) > > No mailing list discussions that I can find, > IIRC, The last discussion on this issue petered out with most of the > discussion centering on whether "Project" should be "Program," or > "Team," or "Collective," or "Arbeitgruppe," or whatever. Two > "coopetitive" views were put out, I think: > > 1. The more the merrier, and let evolution weed 'em out. > 2. Contributors need to prove they have what it takes to carry the > Fedora banner. > > No one has said much about Patrick's wiki page: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects > > I agreed to drive this project definition problem... My personal > viewpoint is that, like logo usage, we want to be generous but > protective about the Fedora name. I prefer that the "Ideas" listed in > this page be promoted to "SIGs" since not only do we have a couple, but > "Ideas" sounds a little dismissive. "SIG" gives the contributors an > immediate feeling of group ownership. Once a SIG has more plans they > can be owned by an official subproject until they are ready to move on, > if that's necessary. Input please? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: barzilay.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue Aug 8 13:27:08 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:27:08 +0200 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <1155042001.6135.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1155042001.6135.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44D8912C.8040400@leemhuis.info> Paul W. Frields schrieb: > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:22 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: >> I'm a little concerned by a recent chain of events. Damien Durand recently >> decided that running interviews of Fedora contributors was a worthy project >> and began working, without support, to make it a reality. This, in itself, >> is good. We need people who take initiative. The problem is the subsequent >> announcement and adoption without review, and this is just a symptom of a >> larger, standing issue. >> >> As soon as Damien put up a page and interviewed Chitlesh Goorah, he sent an [...] > Is it my imagination, or has this just happened again? Seems so. > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2006-August/msg00006.html > (and others) It even made it to one German news-website targeting linux users: http://www.pro-linux.de/news/2006/10065.html CU thl From blizzard at redhat.com Tue Aug 8 13:28:39 2006 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:28:39 -0400 Subject: [fab] JBJ considered harmfull In-Reply-To: References: <200608072049.27252.jkeating@redhat.com> <44D7F733.5090705@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <44D89187.7000105@redhat.com> Do we really want to wait that long? --Chris Max Spevack wrote: > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Rex Dieter wrote: > >> Jesse Keating wrote: >>> Yet another case of JBJ being offensive: >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=143301 >>> Can we please revoke his access to Fedora bugs? > > Wow, those comments... > >> I think(*) the consensus (of the Board) was that this would likely >> happen, but only after another "upstream" bugzilla (besides >> bugzilla.redhat.com) was established for rpm. >> >> -- Rex >> >> (*) Hopefully I'm not putting words in others' mouths, please speak up >> otherwise. (: > > That's accurate. notting and wwoods were going to do some work on solving > the issue of bug groups, etc. > > Where are we with that? > > --Max > From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Aug 8 13:57:20 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:57:20 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fedora Logo Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1155045440.17183.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 18:25 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > * People who are redistributing something based on Fedora, but who are > NOT following the above redistribution guidelines, may NOT use the Fedora > logo. If they choose to use the text "based on Fedora," we won't stop > them. While I don't disagree with anything in this policy, Aurora would not be permitted to use the Fedora logo as we are simply taking Fedora universe packages, patching for sparc, and adding sparc specific OSS utils. Not that I care too much (we're not really _using_ the logo today), but it is worth pointing out. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From stickster at gmail.com Tue Aug 8 14:11:11 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:11:11 -0400 Subject: [fab] Art licensing? Message-ID: <1155046271.6135.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-art-list/2006-August/msg00068.html Does the Free Art License ring a bell? The FSF calls the license free and copyleft, and other than asking people not to license software or documentation under it, they actually provide advice that this license is preferable to simple CC licensing. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#OtherLicenses -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From max at spevack.org Tue Aug 8 14:12:22 2006 From: max at spevack.org (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 10:12:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] JBJ considered harmfull In-Reply-To: <44D89187.7000105@redhat.com> References: <200608072049.27252.jkeating@redhat.com> <44D7F733.5090705@math.unl.edu> <44D89187.7000105@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > Do we really want to wait that long? I was hoping it would be done by now, and that it wouldn't be a long wait. The purpose of what Bill and Will were talking about doing was stopping non-Fedora maintainers or QA folks, basically, from closing Fedora bugs, which is a major problem with what JBJ is doing. >From an engineering perspective, is that going to take a long time? --Max > Max Spevack wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > > > Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > Yet another case of JBJ being offensive: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=143301 Can we > > > > please revoke his access to Fedora bugs? > > > > Wow, those comments... > > > > > I think(*) the consensus (of the Board) was that this would likely > > > happen, but only after another "upstream" bugzilla (besides > > > bugzilla.redhat.com) was established for rpm. > > > > > > -- Rex > > > > > > (*) Hopefully I'm not putting words in others' mouths, please speak up > > > otherwise. (: > > > > That's accurate. notting and wwoods were going to do some work on solving > > the issue of bug groups, etc. > > > > Where are we with that? > > > > --Max > > > > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > > -- Max Spevack + http://spevack.org + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From stickster at gmail.com Tue Aug 8 14:22:14 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:22:14 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora Logo Proposal In-Reply-To: <1155045440.17183.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1155045440.17183.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1155046934.6135.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 08:57 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 18:25 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > * People who are redistributing something based on Fedora, but who are > > NOT following the above redistribution guidelines, may NOT use the Fedora > > logo. If they choose to use the text "based on Fedora," we won't stop > > them. > > While I don't disagree with anything in this policy, Aurora would not be > permitted to use the Fedora logo as we are simply taking Fedora universe > packages, patching for sparc, and adding sparc specific OSS utils. > > Not that I care too much (we're not really _using_ the logo today), but > it is worth pointing out. As much as I think we'd like to automate the heck out of this process so we don't bottleneck anything, would it be worth having an appeal clause like Jabber uses, so we can review and approve some otherwise unapproved usage? spot's doing the kind of thing we generally encourage as far as the FOSS ideals. Or maybe we're missing another item in the list. This may be a stupid (and Pandoraesque) question, so I'll apologize up front for it, but it's honest at least: why is Aurora not part of Fedora, as far as providing build tools, CVS space and such? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Aug 8 14:26:50 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 10:26:50 -0400 Subject: [fab] JBJ considered harmfull In-Reply-To: References: <200608072049.27252.jkeating@redhat.com> <44D89187.7000105@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608081026.51290.jkeating@redhat.com> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 10:12, Max Spevack wrote: > I was hoping it would be done by now, and that it wouldn't be a long wait. > ? The purpose of what Bill and Will were talking about doing was stopping > non-Fedora maintainers or QA folks, basically, from closing Fedora bugs, > which is a major problem with what JBJ is doing. This doesn't prevent him from leaving abusive comments in our bug reports. This is IMHO the bigger issue. Do we have a method for removing abusive folks from bugzilla? If I were to go start dropping f-bombs on random bugs, how quickly would my account get disabled? Why is jbj any different? -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Aug 8 14:30:20 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:30:20 -0500 Subject: [fab] JBJ considered harmfull In-Reply-To: <200608081026.51290.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608072049.27252.jkeating@redhat.com> <44D89187.7000105@redhat.com> <200608081026.51290.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44D89FFC.7090200@math.unl.edu> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tuesday 08 August 2006 10:12, Max Spevack wrote: >> I was hoping it would be done by now, and that it wouldn't be a long wait. >> The purpose of what Bill and Will were talking about doing was stopping >> non-Fedora maintainers or QA folks, basically, from closing Fedora bugs, >> which is a major problem with what JBJ is doing. > > This doesn't prevent him from leaving abusive comments in our bug reports. > This is IMHO the bigger issue. Do we have a method for removing abusive > folks from bugzilla? If I were to go start dropping f-bombs on random bugs, > how quickly would my account get disabled? Why is jbj any different? Well, for starters, I'd imagine it a lot easier and justifiable for redhat/fedora to censure someone @redhat.com. (: -- Rex From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Aug 8 14:37:09 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:37:09 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fedora Logo Proposal In-Reply-To: <1155046934.6135.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1155045440.17183.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1155046934.6135.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1155047829.17183.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 10:22 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > This may be a stupid (and Pandoraesque) question, so I'll apologize up > front for it, but it's honest at least: why is Aurora not part of > Fedora, as far as providing build tools, CVS space and such? Why is Aurora not part of Fedora? 1. Aurora is older than Fedora. We've been at this since RHL 7.2. 2. sparc breaks. A LOT. For example, right now, glibc won't build for sparc64 and gcc won't build for sparc32. These tend to be very pivotal to a buildtree. 2a. With an arch that breaks a lot, it requires a lot of attention. Attention that undoubtedly Red Hat is not willing to provide it for Fedora Core (nor do I fault them for this). Red Hat doesn't pay me to do Aurora, I do that because I'm independently insane. 2b. Even if somehow Fedora Core SPARC was resolved, the issue of handling sparc in Fedora Extras arises. Today, Dennis Gilmore does a great job of rebuilding the SRPMS from FE, but many of them don't work for sparc. Should maintainers have to support sparc like they do ppc/i386/x86_64? I have some proposals for handling architecture tiering, but I've not had the time nor the motivation to pursue them (since there is no FC SPARC solution yet). ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Aug 8 14:46:35 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 10:46:35 -0400 Subject: [fab] JBJ considered harmfull In-Reply-To: <44D89FFC.7090200@math.unl.edu> References: <200608072049.27252.jkeating@redhat.com> <200608081026.51290.jkeating@redhat.com> <44D89FFC.7090200@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <200608081046.35612.jkeating@redhat.com> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 10:30, Rex Dieter wrote: > Well, for starters, I'd imagine it a lot easier and justifiable for > redhat/fedora to censure someone @redhat.com. ?(: So I use my @j2solutions.net account... The problem doesn't change. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue Aug 8 15:25:24 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:25:24 +0200 Subject: [fab] rant: why does it take so long to prepare a firefox update for FC5? In-Reply-To: <200608080730.34346.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <44D849C2.9030505@leemhuis.info> <200608080730.34346.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44D8ACE4.4090109@leemhuis.info> First: thx for the answer Jesse! Jesse Keating schrieb: > On Tuesday 08 August 2006 04:22, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> Firefox 1.5.0.5 was released on July 26, nearly two weeks ago now. It >> contains very important security fixes AFAICS (an exploit is in the wild >> AFAIK) but there is still no update for FC5 in sight. What the heck is >> taking so long? This behavior brings Fedora in discredit because Firefox >> is a very important package. And it's actually the second time already >> that it takes so long -- firefox 1.5.0.4 was release as FC5 update on 15 >> Jun 2006, two weeks after the official release on mozilla.org. > > Unfortunately we have basically one fellow at Red Hat to manage all the > mozilla / seamonkey / firefox / thunderbird updates. And he has to manage > them from RHEL2.1 all the way through development. He is REALLY overworked. > This is one of the cases were it would be really nice to have it in Extras so > that somebody else could donate some time to massage the build through. The > mozilla suite is very fickle, and tends to fall over if the slightest thing > changes. If the build doesn't just succeed it can be a long drawn out > process to get it built / tested / releases. Unfortunately we've been in > crunch time at work for not only the FC6 Test2 deadline, but the RHEL5 Beta1 > deadline too. This meant that the other folks in the Desktop team did not > really have a spare cycle to try and process the firefox update. > > Yes, it sucks. Yes, we could do better. s/could/should/ IMHO. > How can the community help? If the > patch is in the wild, try to compile with the patch. If the compile fails, > fix it, and provide a working patch / srpm in the bug. That way just about > any package monkey (like me) could push it through the build system. Well, as I wrote, the updated spec file is in CVS already for some days now and it build and works fine here on FC5 x86_64. Further: How could Red Hat help? *Red Hat should ask for help in situations like this!* There are a lot of people around in Extras/Fedora-land that are willing to help in situations like this, but probably nobody is going to step up without a external trigger. We are used to @redhat-maintainers that take care of their packages on their own. > Also you have to take into account that firefox.org doesn't care about Linux. > They produce "updates" that are first Windows precompiled binaries. Their > Linux stuff is still in CVS, not even tarball released yet, so we have to try > and take a CVS snapshot or troll through CVS logs to find the right patch. > They also don't seem to care about vendorsec, or if they do its a token > notice and nonsensical embargo dates. The last one I noticed was set to be > released in the middle of a global holiday (Easter). They really really suck > for trying to work out security updates, especially for Linux where they > aren't providing the binaries. They care about what they provide as > precompiled clients and nothing else (at least that's how it appears from the > outside). This is yet another reason why the security update can take longer > than expected and longer after it's public than expected. Not an excuse, > just another factor. Well, that factor didn't stop Ubuntu from releasing a Firefox update even slightly before mozilla.org did: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-security-announce/2006-July/000367.html Tue Jul 25 09:49:50 BST 2006 BTW, I hope we get something like the comaintainership in Core in the longer term (see https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-July/msg00960.html for the plans on co-maintainership in Extras -- I hope this can influence Core in the longer term, too) CU thl From gdk at redhat.com Tue Aug 8 15:51:24 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 11:51:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Fedora Logo Proposal In-Reply-To: <20060807233233.GA27495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20060807233233.GA27495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Greg DeKoenigsberg (gdk at redhat.com) said: > > Anyway, that's the proposal. If you have an objection, please be as > > specific as you can possibly be. We want to take action on this soon. > > How would these terms relate to Diana's and M?ir?n's gimp/photo stuff? It's > neither schwag, nor website, nor a distribution itself. Does this fall under > 'things approved by Fedora Art'? > > Bill Maybe. Here's the high level thinking: If it involves usage of the logo itself, it must be part of an approval process. It it's just pretty pictures for use with Fedora, it doesn't necessarily have to be part of an approval process. I think it's sensible to split any "Fedora Art" efforts into two basic categories: Fedora Logo and Fedora All-Other-Art. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From gdk at redhat.com Tue Aug 8 15:53:26 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 11:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Fedora Logo Proposal In-Reply-To: <1154994529.15301.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060807233233.GA27495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1154994529.15301.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Paul W. Frields wrote: > I think everyone would probably agree that any Creative Commons "NC" is > not free enough (probably "ND" as well), but what about "BY" and/or > "SA"? Are there other licenses that work well for art? Because the logo is a registered trademark, there are *no* open licenses that can apply to it. By definition. Any usage of the Fedora logo must be "explicitly approved" by us. Now, that "explicit approval" process can be as lightweight as we can *possibly* make it -- but *by definition* our cannot be placed into any kind of commons. The painful truth. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From gdk at redhat.com Tue Aug 8 16:04:37 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 12:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <44D8912C.8040400@leemhuis.info> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1155042001.6135.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44D8912C.8040400@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: So why is new project formation out of control? My theory: because we're not enforcing any guidelines on their creation -- even limited guidelines. We're just wringing our hands after the fact. Here's the simplest possible guidelines I can imagine -- and the simplest possible guidelines are almost always the best. :) 1. Community members are allowed to create Fedora SIGs. Create them, announce them, rally support around them. Do whatever you like. 2. Fedora Projects may *only* be announced by the Fedora Board. 3. State this policy on fedora-announce-list, and make it prominent on the wiki. 4. Anyone who violates this simple policy will be corrected as quickly as possible, and asked to go back to everywhere they announced it and announce the corrected truth: "oops, I created a SIG, not a project. Sorry." Simplicty and consistency. That's what makes rules stick. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Aug 8 16:38:22 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:38:22 -0500 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1155042001.6135.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44D8912C.8040400@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <44D8BDFE.8090305@math.unl.edu> Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > Here's the simplest possible guidelines I can imagine -- and the simplest > possible guidelines are almost always the best. :) > > 1. Community members are allowed to create Fedora SIGs. Create them, > announce them, rally support around them. Do whatever you like. > > 2. Fedora Projects may *only* be announced by the Fedora Board. > > 3. State this policy on fedora-announce-list, and make it prominent on the > wiki. > > 4. Anyone who violates this simple policy will be corrected as quickly as > possible, and asked to go back to everywhere they announced it and > announce the corrected truth: "oops, I created a SIG, not a project. > Sorry." > > Simplicty and consistency. That's what makes rules stick. Amen brother, +infinity -- Rex From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Tue Aug 8 16:52:29 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:52:29 -0500 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <44D8BDFE.8090305@math.unl.edu> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1155042001.6135.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44D8912C.8040400@leemhuis.info> <44D8BDFE.8090305@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1155055949.31245.7.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 11:38 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > Here's the simplest possible guidelines I can imagine -- and the simplest > > possible guidelines are almost always the best. :) > > > > 1. Community members are allowed to create Fedora SIGs. Create them, > > announce them, rally support around them. Do whatever you like. > > > > 2. Fedora Projects may *only* be announced by the Fedora Board. > > > > 3. State this policy on fedora-announce-list, and make it prominent on the > > wiki. > > > > 4. Anyone who violates this simple policy will be corrected as quickly as > > possible, and asked to go back to everywhere they announced it and > > announce the corrected truth: "oops, I created a SIG, not a project. > > Sorry." > > > > Simplicty and consistency. That's what makes rules stick. > > Amen brother, +infinity Yeah, simple. But it'll look funny if it ever plays out to it's full extent. contributor: "Announcing the Fedora foo Project!" x <# of announces> FB: "Erm, no. You need to go correct yourself and say it's a SIG" contributor: "Sorry, it's really the Fedora foo SIG!" x