kqemu is now GPLv2

[Jesse Keating]

On Thursday 08 February 2007 05:20, Andreas Bierfert wrote:
> Yes I remember this and that is why I think we need to find a solution
> which will avoid such issues and if it would be great to have someone like
> you helping with the planning. Keeping this out of Fedora will just lead
> to more situations like this because 3rd party repos will do it anyway.
> Building something under the fedora hood will give us the chance to at
> least push it in the direction we want.

The direction we want is upstream.  Period.  Anything short of that is a 
shortcut that vendors / authors can take and be happy with it and never try 
to get it upstream.  Yes, it is hard to get stuff upstream because your stuff 
has to not suck, and somepeople don't want to hear that.  But frankly, if 
your stuff sucks too much to go upstream, I really don't want it on Fedora 
users's systems either.  We as Fedora don't have to rule the world, we don't 
have to have every computer installed with Fedora.  What we _do_ have to do 
is be a responsible distribution and do what's best for our users over time, 
and that is making it extremely clear to kernel module developers, get it 
upstream, or count Fedora out.

>
> >  > If the modules are free in the fedora sense
> >  > why should we keep our users away from them?
> >
> > How about increased workload for the kernel team for one?
> > I don't see anyone doing much to improve *my* user experience.
> >
> >  > In a sense they then still will be second
> >  > class fedora 'packages'
> >
> > This doesn't work.  People take the attitude "You shipped it, you support
> > it".
> > We had this fiasco with RHEL3 when we shipped a 'kernel-unsupported'
> > package.
>
> Well first of all the RHEL audience is somewhat different then the Fedora
> audience and if it we find a clear definition for what we support on this
> matter and what we don't and make clear that people understand it.

Riiiiight.  With RHEL, people are signing contracts that clearly state what 
their support level is.  Nothing like this exists with Fedora, nor should it 
ever.  It would be _extremely_ difficult to try and define something like 
this.  The very simple answer is "If it didn't come from an Official Fedora 
repo, we will NOT care about it."  Since we don't care about out of kernel 
modules for the support side of things, simple answer, no out of tree modules 
in an official Fedora repo.

-- 
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: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070208/800dfa67/attachment.sig>