[fab] Re: openmotif

[Paul W. Frields]

On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 15:47 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Frankly, I'm a little surprised, after our previous discussions on
> > whether we should pursue FSF endorsement in some fashion, that we would
> > wring our hands much about this.  We've agreed that openmotif is not
> > free.  Fedora only ships free software.  Rahul, you have said this to
> > many people, many times.  
> 
> Yes but I have also been telling many people that we should do things in 
> a way that doesnt affect end users and our contributors.  Pretty much 
> all of the openmotif dependencies in Fedora Core and Extras can be fixed 
> with lesstif.  #3 is disruptive. #1 doesnt make much sense to me since 
> we havent included libraries in Fedora Core unless we had actual 
> applications in Fedora Core dependent on them. 

I agree that #1 makes no sense.

> Since there is already support to move all the openmotif dependencies
> into Fedora Extras, I dont see why we need to retain openmotif in
> Fedora Core.

This part I agree with. :-)  I think that in this case moving the apps
and libs dependent on openmotif to Extras makes sense, which would allow
them to join the Extras "rolling release" structure.  Thus, when they're
fixed, people would be able to upgrade.  So you have one of two
situations AIUI, and not being a programmer type, I would appreciate
corrections where I'm wrong:

1.  User has openmotif [+ dependent packages] installed, and upgrades to
FC6.  The openmotif package stays installed as is, and the dependent
packages will pull in lesstif once they are rebuilt and repushed to FE.
It's up to the user to remove openmotif unless we obsolete it with
lesstif, which seems risky.

2.  User has openmotif [+ dependent packages] installed, and installs
FC6, expecting to find these packages again during or after
installation, and doesn't.  This causes grumbling.  User drops back to
FC5 until he figures out the situation by looking at release notes, FAQ,
or ML, and then chooses to either stay with FC5 until we have lesstif
replacements for his favorite packages, or he gets openmotif on his own
and takes the plunge to FC6.

Neither of these situations prevents a third-party repository from
picking up openmotif if they're interested, right?

> We moved GNOME 1.x libs to Fedora Extras soon after GNUCash got into
> the GTK 2.x bandwagon.  The current situation isnt very different.

Of course it's different.  GNOME 1.x libraries are free software by
every definition that matters, while openmotif is not.  Leaving
openmotif in Fedora (no matter where one puts it) and continuing to talk
about freedom is just hypocritical.

> The dumping argument is a red herring. Anyway, I am not going to waste
> more bandwidth on this. If you guys believe that dumping out all the 
> applications now makes more sense, go ahead.

IIRC you were a proponent of engaging in a license review for Core.  It
was a good idea then, and it still is.  Obviously this kind of situation
was one of the possible outcomes of that review, although of course none
of us are thrilled by it.  A concomitant plan for dealing with the
potential fallout would have been good, but in its absence, we simply
have to deal honestly and forthrightly with the fallout.  I don't see
how we can rationally defend maintaining non-free software in the
Fedora, anywhere.

As an aside, I think the Extras folks deserve a big pat on the back
because it's unlikely, given the required license review they've had in
place, that Extras is harboring any more of these problems.

-- 
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: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20060830/3b1e1e18/attachment.sig>