From notting at redhat.com Tue May 1 04:39:57 2007 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 00:39:57 -0400 Subject: Tuesday May 1 Fedora Board Meeting topics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070501043957.GE11331@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Max Spevack (mspevack at redhat.com) said: > (1) Thorsten's draft proposal suggesting a division of responsibility > between the Board and FESCO is worth people's time reading. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/FESCoAndBoard > > My guess is we can probably get some email list discussion of it prior to > tomorrow's meeting, and then hash out in IRC any of the biggest concerns. Considering it's 9 hours to the meeting and no responses... :) One thing that has popped up to me is that if it's the 'Fedora Engineering Steering Committee'... doesn't Docs then fall under FESCo? (I'm not saying it definitely *needs* to, but it would be the logical place for it.) Bill From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue May 1 12:35:40 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 14:35:40 +0200 Subject: Tuesday May 1 Fedora Board Meeting topics In-Reply-To: <20070501043957.GE11331@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20070501043957.GE11331@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4637341C.1030403@leemhuis.info> Bill Nottingham schrieb: > Max Spevack (mspevack at redhat.com) said: >> (1) Thorsten's draft proposal suggesting a division of responsibility >> between the Board and FESCO is worth people's time reading. >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/FESCoAndBoard >> >> My guess is we can probably get some email list discussion of it prior to >> tomorrow's meeting, and then hash out in IRC any of the biggest concerns. > > Considering it's 9 hours to the meeting and no responses... :) Well, I'd like to see this topic solved soon, but one (or two) week more or less doesn't do much harm imho. In other words: F7 is IMHO at atm more important than this governance issue. But maybe we can at least make some process meanwhile. > One thing that has popped up to me is that if it's the 'Fedora Engineering > Steering Committee'... doesn't Docs then fall under FESCo? (I'm not > saying it definitely *needs* to, but it would be the logical place for > it.) /me thinks about it for a while I'd say docs should stay separate. There are some areas where engineering tasks and work from the docs group are closely related (release notes for example), but well, that IMHO not enough reasons to get it under the hood of FESCo. If one wants to put Docs below FESCo then maybe Infrastructure should be under FESCo's hood as well; then we come to the point where we could get rid of FESCo again and let the Board do everything what FESCo should do (?). CU thl (?) -- as we call a lot simply Fedora these days it seems to me it might be better to add "the Distro", "the Project" or "the Package Repository" when mentioning the term "Fedora"... ;-) (?) -- We could go that way (get rid of FESCo and let the Board handle the coordination of all groups directly) -- but when we discussed the FESCo successor for the merged world it seemed to me people wanted to keep FESCo around as it worked well in the "old" Extras days From kwade at redhat.com Tue May 1 12:46:32 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 05:46:32 -0700 Subject: Tuesday May 1 Fedora Board Meeting topics In-Reply-To: <20070501043957.GE11331@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20070501043957.GE11331@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1178023592.4646.51.camel@erato.phig.org> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 00:39 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > One thing that has popped up to me is that if it's the 'Fedora Engineering > Steering Committee'... doesn't Docs then fall under FESCo? (I'm not > saying it definitely *needs* to, but it would be the logical place for > it.) No clear answer comes to me here. Like e.g. Artwork, Marketing, and Ambassadors, Fedora Documentation work is directly in the distro and also outside of it. If your idea is "all under FESCo,"[1] then it makes sense. If it is only "sub-projects and SIGs that produce the distro are under FESCo," then I'm not so sure. Maybe the classic dotted-line report?[2] For the latter, each sub-project would be responsible up through FESCo for the parts they had to provide in producing the distro (icons, themes, release notes, translations, etc.), the distro production being the purview of FESCo. FESCo can decide that e.g. content from another party is to be used instead of Fedora Docs produced content, or artwork from one group used instead of artwork from another. That way FESCo can make pragmatic decisions around release needs that don't impinge on the legitimacy of the individual groups. After all, there are kitten lives at stake here!!! There are groups whose sole purpose is distro production, but even many of those have e.g. upstream responsibility that (I argue) shouldn't be in the purview of FESCo to control. For example, Dave Jones and the kernel team make decisions about upstream interaction as part of doing their job to produce a Fedora distro kernel; FESCo shouldn't be empowered to get between Dave and LKML, right? So, for the groups who have *many* activities that are outside of distro production, those groups should report directly to FPB (or another, non-distro focused group designated by FPB), with a dotted line report to FESCo for the parts of the distro they are responsible for. Just another $0.05 of an idea, Karsten [1] FPB \=> FESCo |=> QA |=> Testing |=> RelEng |=> Docs |=> Artwork |=> Ambassadors |=> L10n \=> ... [2] FPB \=> FESCo -------------- | |=> QA + | |=> Testing + | |=> RelEng + | + |=> Docs --------------+ |=> Artwork -----------+ |=> Ambassadors -------+ |=> L10n --------------+ \=> ... ---------------+ -- Karsten Wade, 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 aoliva at redhat.com Tue May 1 13:04:51 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 10:04:51 -0300 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Tue\, 01 May 2007 00\:27\:51 +0530") References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1176344287.13177.23.camel@cutter> <1176344404.5208.155.camel@erato.phig.org> <2cb10c440704120851j45984dabi273f57389e4aa37a@mail.gmail.com> <20070412160139.GW15933@deprecation.cyrius.com> <461ECEB1.7000301@redhat.com> <46267E12.4090500@fedoraproject.org> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Once more time, I'm not talking about the firmware in the kernel. >> >> That's harder to remove, I agree. One has to get out of one's way to >> do that. > Just pointing out that you are drawing a line between firmware inside > the kernel and firmware outside of it while Fedora is drawing a line > between firmware and other forms of proprietary software. i) I'm not. The FSF did, and did it a while ago, before even thinking about removing stuff from the kernel was thinkable. ii) The line is not between what's acceptable and what's not. In time, all such non-Free firmware will be removed from the 100% Free distros, because they are committed to Freedom. If not, we'll know they aren't, and the FSF will likely take them out of the list. iii) Failing to take something bad out that is in and very technically difficult to remove is very different from adding something bad that wasn't in and will be very politically difficult to remove. The former comes off as lack of manpower. The latter comes off as lack of commitment. > Atleast in Fedora the division is clearly documented in the > packaging guidelines. Which is and has always been incompatible with the stated goals of the Fedora project. Now, while it was there but wasn't exercised, it was bad but not terrible. Now that it is exercised, we're basically telling pure Free Software activists to go away. Is this the goal? To trade each pure Free Software user for 1048576 freedom-unconcerned users? :-( > You need to bring this up Fedora 7 launch. Now is too late to be ^after > making changes for this release. Well, yeah, but is this a frank argument? Was it too late already when I first brought it up? Was it too late already when I last did before this time? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue May 1 13:21:54 2007 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 08:21:54 -0500 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1176344287.13177.23.camel@cutter> <1176344404.5208.155.camel@erato.phig.org> <2cb10c440704120851j45984dabi273f57389e4aa37a@mail.gmail.com> <20070412160139.GW15933@deprecation.cyrius.com> <461ECEB1.7000301@redhat.com> <46267E12.4090500@fedoraproject.org> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Atleast in Fedora the division is clearly documented in the >> packaging guidelines. > > Which is and has always been incompatible with the stated goals of the > Fedora project. It may be worth pointing out here that Fedora currently only includes objectives/packaging-guidelines to be opensource/redistributable, not necessarily (100%) free, and wrt *this* conversation, the Board considered firmware to be an acceptable exception(1). -- Rex (1) redistributability was considered good enough (for now), notably because firmware is tied to hardware, and doesn't run on the host cpu. From mspevack at redhat.com Tue May 1 13:50:46 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 09:50:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Tuesday May 1 Fedora Board Meeting topics In-Reply-To: <1178023592.4646.51.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <20070501043957.GE11331@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1178023592.4646.51.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 1 May 2007, Karsten Wade wrote: > [2] > FPB > \=> FESCo -------------- > | |=> QA + > | |=> Testing + > | |=> RelEng + > | + > |=> Docs --------------+ > |=> Artwork -----------+ > |=> Ambassadors -------+ > |=> L10n --------------+ > \=> ... ---------------+ I think I prefer this second model. It allows FESCO to work on *exactly* what is core to the next release of the Fedora OS, and it allows some of the other Fedora projects to help FESCO as needed (Docs or artwork are great examples here) but maintain their own sort of lifecycle that isn't necessarily tied to a specific release of Fedora. --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 fedora at leemhuis.info Tue May 1 13:54:49 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:54:49 +0200 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1176344287.13177.23.camel@cutter> <1176344404.5208.155.camel@erato.phig.org> <2cb10c440704120851j45984dabi273f57389e4aa37a@mail.gmail.com> <20070412160139.GW15933@deprecation.cyrius.com> <461ECEB1.7000301@redhat.com> <46267E12.4090500@fedoraproject.org> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <463746A9.7070504@leemhuis.info> Alexandre Oliva schrieb: > On Apr 30, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> Once more time, I'm not talking about the firmware in the kernel. >>> >>> That's harder to remove, I agree. One has to get out of one's way to >>> do that. > >> Just pointing out that you are drawing a line between firmware inside >> the kernel and firmware outside of it while Fedora is drawing a line >> between firmware and other forms of proprietary software. > > i) I'm not. The FSF did, and did it a while ago, before even thinking > about removing stuff from the kernel was thinkable. > [...] Hmmm. I'd really like to see an entirely free spin of Fedora that doesn't include firmware as separate packages or in the kernel. As the latter is not possible easily yet it doesn't make much sense starting to work on it yet. But my logic fails to follow this: Seperate firmware -> unacceptable Firmware that's part of the kernel -> acceptable That looks like a foul compromise to me. If firmware is considered non-Free then *for my logic* it should be considered non-Free wherever it located/part of. In other words: As long as Fedora has firmware files as part of the kernel it's IMHO not much worse if we have some firmware bits in userland, too. And heck, that's probably better for everyone -- otherwise people or vendors might start putting even more firmware files into the kernel somehow. CU Thorsten 'knurd' Leemhuis From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue May 1 14:02:54 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 16:02:54 +0200 Subject: Tuesday May 1 Fedora Board Meeting topics In-Reply-To: References: <20070501043957.GE11331@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1178023592.4646.51.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <4637488E.8060507@leemhuis.info> Max Spevack schrieb: > On Tue, 1 May 2007, Karsten Wade wrote: > >> [2] >> FPB >> \=> FESCo -------------- >> | |=> QA + >> | |=> Testing + >> | |=> RelEng + >> | + >> |=> Docs --------------+ >> |=> Artwork -----------+ >> |=> Ambassadors -------+ >> |=> L10n --------------+ >> \=> ... ---------------+ > > I think I prefer this second model. It allows FESCO to work on *exactly* > what is core to the next release of the Fedora OS, and it allows some of > the other Fedora projects to help FESCO as needed (Docs or artwork are > great examples here) but maintain their own sort of lifecycle that isn't > necessarily tied to a specific release of Fedora. +1 CU thl From mmcgrath at redhat.com Tue May 1 15:07:02 2007 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 10:07:02 -0500 Subject: Dell + Linux In-Reply-To: <45DC575F.8080801@redhat.com> References: <45DC575F.8080801@redhat.com> Message-ID: <46375796.8070007@redhat.com> Mike McGrath wrote: > What are we doing to make sure that this is a good experience for Dell > and their customers? > > http://wirelessisfun.com/2007/02/20/dell-powered-by-linux/ > Restarting thread. http://news.com.com/Dell+picks+Ubuntu+for+Linux+PCs/2100-7344_3-6180419.html?tag=nefd.lede -Mike From stickster at gmail.com Tue May 1 15:10:16 2007 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 11:10:16 -0400 Subject: Tuesday May 1 Fedora Board Meeting topics In-Reply-To: <4637488E.8060507@leemhuis.info> References: <20070501043957.GE11331@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1178023592.4646.51.camel@erato.phig.org> <4637488E.8060507@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <1178032216.4086.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 16:02 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > Max Spevack schrieb: > > On Tue, 1 May 2007, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > >> [2] > >> FPB > >> \=> FESCo -------------- > >> | |=> QA + > >> | |=> Testing + > >> | |=> RelEng + > >> | + > >> |=> Docs --------------+ > >> |=> Artwork -----------+ > >> |=> Ambassadors -------+ > >> |=> L10n --------------+ > >> \=> ... ---------------+ > > > > I think I prefer this second model. It allows FESCO to work on *exactly* > > what is core to the next release of the Fedora OS, and it allows some of > > the other Fedora projects to help FESCO as needed (Docs or artwork are > > great examples here) but maintain their own sort of lifecycle that isn't > > necessarily tied to a specific release of Fedora. > > +1 +1 -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- 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 aoliva at redhat.com Tue May 1 15:15:37 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 12:15:37 -0300 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> (Rex Dieter's message of "Tue\, 01 May 2007 08\:21\:54 -0500") References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1176344287.13177.23.camel@cutter> <1176344404.5208.155.camel@erato.phig.org> <2cb10c440704120851j45984dabi273f57389e4aa37a@mail.gmail.com> <20070412160139.GW15933@deprecation.cyrius.com> <461ECEB1.7000301@redhat.com> <46267E12.4090500@fedoraproject.org> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: On May 1, 2007, Rex Dieter wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> Atleast in Fedora the division is clearly documented in the >>> packaging guidelines. >> >> Which is and has always been incompatible with the stated goals of the >> Fedora project. > It may be worth pointing out here that Fedora currently only includes > objectives/packaging-guidelines to be opensource/redistributable, Err... Except that, when I got into this thread, I was thanking Rahul for the clarification on the front page. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ says: All in pursuit of the best operating system and platform that free software can provide. So if what you say is true, the front page ought to be amended. Or vice-versa. > (1) redistributability was considered good enough (for now), notably > because firmware is tied to hardware, and doesn't run on the host cpu. I understand the double-thinking, I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency with the stated goal in the front page. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From aoliva at redhat.com Tue May 1 15:24:19 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 12:24:19 -0300 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: <463746A9.7070504@leemhuis.info> (Thorsten Leemhuis's message of "Tue\, 01 May 2007 15\:54\:49 +0200") References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1176344287.13177.23.camel@cutter> <1176344404.5208.155.camel@erato.phig.org> <2cb10c440704120851j45984dabi273f57389e4aa37a@mail.gmail.com> <20070412160139.GW15933@deprecation.cyrius.com> <461ECEB1.7000301@redhat.com> <46267E12.4090500@fedoraproject.org> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <463746A9.7070504@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: On May 1, 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hmmm. I'd really like to see an entirely free spin of Fedora that > doesn't include firmware as separate packages or in the kernel. +1 > As the latter is not possible easily yet Why not? AFAIK gNewSense folks published their tool to extract the all non-Free firmware from the kernel. > it doesn't make much sense starting to work on it yet. But does it make sense to add more of a bad thing just because we think we can't easily get rid of the bad things we already have? > But my logic fails to follow this: > Seperate firmware -> unacceptable > Firmware that's part of the kernel -> acceptable That's not my reasoning. My reasoning is: Firmware that's part of the kernel => bad, should eventually try to get rid of it Separate firmware => bad, should keep on avoiding > If firmware is considered non-Free then *for my logic* it should be > considered non-Free wherever it located/part of. Agreed. > In other words: As long as Fedora has firmware files as part of the > kernel it's IMHO not much worse if we have some firmware bits in > userland, too. "Not much worse" is the operative keyword here. It's worse, just not much. It's one more step down a slippery slope. > And heck, that's probably better for everyone -- otherwise people or > vendors might start putting even more firmware files into the kernel > somehow. And then, by making it easy for people to tolerate this kind of abuse, we're helping people reject such vendors how? And we're helping these vendors see they ought to respect people how? It seems to me that, by making it easier for people to use such devices, we're telling people "hey, look, look how good this is for you", and we're telling vendors "keep that coming, we'll take it". While the message we should be sending is "Thanks, but no, thanks!" I think it's not too hard to see where it leads to take a little step at a time down the "not much worse" slope. It won't get us where we state we want to be. It will take us farther and farther from it, and it will be harder to get back what we already had. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Tue May 1 15:20:06 2007 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 10:20:06 -0500 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1176344287.13177.23.camel@cutter> <1176344404.5208.155.camel@erato.phig.org> <2cb10c440704120851j45984dabi273f57389e4aa37a@mail.gmail.com> <20070412160139.GW15933@deprecation.cyrius.com> <461ECEB1.7000301@redhat.com> <46267E12.4090500@fedoraproject.org> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1178032806.3026.65.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 12:15 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 1, 2007, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >>> Atleast in Fedora the division is clearly documented in the > >>> packaging guidelines. > >> > >> Which is and has always been incompatible with the stated goals of the > >> Fedora project. > > > It may be worth pointing out here that Fedora currently only includes > > objectives/packaging-guidelines to be opensource/redistributable, > > Err... Except that, when I got into this thread, I was thanking Rahul > for the clarification on the front page. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ says: > > All in pursuit of the best operating system and platform that href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html"> free > software can provide. > > So if what you say is true, the front page ought to be amended. Or > vice-versa. > > > (1) redistributability was considered good enough (for now), notably > > because firmware is tied to hardware, and doesn't run on the host cpu. > > I understand the double-thinking, I'm merely pointing out the > inconsistency with the stated goal in the front page. I agree. The link is not an accurate definition of what is included in the distribution. One could make a reasonable arguement that firmware is not "software", but I would rather have that link point to a page in our wiki that explains a bit more clearly what is included and why. josh From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue May 1 15:36:26 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 21:06:26 +0530 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1176344287.13177.23.camel@cutter> <1176344404.5208.155.camel@erato.phig.org> <2cb10c440704120851j45984dabi273f57389e4aa37a@mail.gmail.com> <20070412160139.GW15933@deprecation.cyrius.com> <461ECEB1.7000301@redhat.com> <46267E12.4090500@fedoraproject.org> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <46375E7A.1080800@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Apr 30, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> Once more time, I'm not talking about the firmware in the kernel. >>> >>> That's harder to remove, I agree. One has to get out of one's way to >>> do that. > >> Just pointing out that you are drawing a line between firmware inside >> the kernel and firmware outside of it while Fedora is drawing a line >> between firmware and other forms of proprietary software. > > i) I'm not. The FSF did, and did it a while ago, before even thinking > about removing stuff from the kernel was thinkable. It wasn't unthinkable at any point of time. We can claim that Fedora thinks that a distribution without the firmware we include is unthinkable. FSF compromised considered the practical aspects just like Fedora did. > ii) The line is not between what's acceptable and what's not. In time, > all such non-Free firmware will be removed from the 100% Free distros, > because they are committed to Freedom. If not, we'll know they > aren't, and the FSF will likely take them out of the list. There is no public statement on the FSF website on this and there is no differentiation between distributions which include firmware in the kernel and which include them. Why aren't you changing it to educate end users? >> Atleast in Fedora the division is clearly documented in the >> packaging guidelines. > > Which is and has always been incompatible with the stated goals of the > Fedora project. Yes, it's called a exception for a reason. > Now, while it was there but wasn't exercised, it was bad but not > terrible. Now that it is exercised, we're basically telling pure Free > Software activists to go away. Is this the goal? To trade each pure > Free Software user for 1048576 freedom-unconcerned users? :-( FSF already does that by calling the distributions which include binary firmware inside the kernel as Free software distributions. Arguing that when FSF comprimises it's ok but when Fedora does it is not is just what you called >> You need to bring this up Fedora 7 launch. Now is too late to be > ^after >> making changes for this release. > > Well, yeah, but is this a frank argument? Was it too late already > when I first brought it up? Was it too late already when I last did > before this time? Yes it was. It always will be until there is more resources to tackle this issue. Rahul From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue May 1 15:37:13 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 17:37:13 +0200 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1176344287.13177.23.camel@cutter> <1176344404.5208.155.camel@erato.phig.org> <2cb10c440704120851j45984dabi273f57389e4aa37a@mail.gmail.com> <20070412160139.GW15933@deprecation.cyrius.com> <461ECEB1.7000301@redhat.com> <46267E12.4090500@fedoraproject.org> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <463746A9.7070504@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <46375EA9.7080308@leemhuis.info> Alexandre Oliva schrieb: > On May 1, 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > [...] >> As the latter is not possible easily yet > Why not? AFAIK gNewSense folks published their tool to extract the > all non-Free firmware from the kernel. Yeah, I was a bit unclear here; to be more specific: It it possible to remove the firmware bits from recent kernels and ship them as a separate packages, so those users that need the firmware can simply install them and everything works? I don't want to leave those users outside in the cold. They need a solution IMHO before targeting a Firmware-Free spin is worth the trouble. > [...] CU thl From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue May 1 15:38:17 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 21:08:17 +0530 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1176344287.13177.23.camel@cutter> <1176344404.5208.155.camel@erato.phig.org> <2cb10c440704120851j45984dabi273f57389e4aa37a@mail.gmail.com> <20070412160139.GW15933@deprecation.cyrius.com> <461ECEB1.7000301@redhat.com> <46267E12.4090500@fedoraproject.org> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <46375EE9.5090106@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > So if what you say is true, the front page ought to be amended. Or > vice-versa. Current implementation can be different from the end goal. There is nothing to be amended. Rahul From matt at domsch.com Tue May 1 15:58:34 2007 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 10:58:34 -0500 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: <46375EE9.5090106@fedoraproject.org> References: <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> <46375EE9.5090106@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20070501155826.GA29555@domsch.com> Like it or not, Operating Systems and software run on hardware. Fedora could decide that Freedom means it's software should only run on hardware for which the board schematics, chipset and processor tape-outs, resistor and capacitor specifications are published and freely available for tinkering. And indeed, there are some efforts towards each of these pieces (Open Graphics, LinuxBIOS, ...), and I encourage them. However, that would allow roughly 2.8 people (of the 2.8M F6 users [1]) an opportunity to use Fedora how they want to use it. I see the "slippery slope" as going the other direction. There's already intense pressure on hardware vendors to release Free drivers, and in some cases, documentation. With a few notable exceptions, this pressure has benefited the Linux and Free Software communities greatly. And this pressure will continue, to the benefit of our users. However, exclusionary language and demands only serve to alienate those who we need to work with. Unless in the name of Free Software, entire industries spring up to provide Free replacements in the mass market for those things being excluded. I see steps noted above, but nothing large enough that a one-for-one replacement is anywhere near at hand. Pressure, encouragement, coaching, education, seeking common good. These are all appropriate. Exclusion, derision, moral arguments ("I'm better than you because...") don't further The Cause. -Matt [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics From smooge at gmail.com Tue May 1 18:16:59 2007 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 12:16:59 -0600 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: <20070501155826.GA29555@domsch.com> References: <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> <46375EE9.5090106@fedoraproject.org> <20070501155826.GA29555@domsch.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090705011116n5b5089dh42a37226d323b90a@mail.gmail.com> On 5/1/07, Matt Domsch wrote: > Like it or not, Operating Systems and software run on hardware. > I am agreeing with Matt on this. First doing this breaks the "Work with Upstream" on this. Second it doesnt seem to follow the "Work as a subteam first, see how it works, then integrate with mainline." I would say that the first step would be for Alexandre Oliva and similar minded people to create a SIG and then build a working kernel+tools around Fedora 7 final to get a working design done. When you have working code and can show how people will work with it, then you can work on getting integrated or know that it isnt going to work at all within Fedora due to non-technical problems Second when you have a working model, you can get mindshare to help work changing upstream that it shouldnt have any firmware in the kernel. Unless you can really get upstream to buy into this.. then it will not really fly with maintenance of the Fedora. Third you are going to need to get some sort of system builder aligned with your goal.. as getting a system for people that is completely hackable is not easy or cheap at this time. When you can get a marketable reason that this is better than doing it otherwise.. you can change minds and buying decisions. All of these will take time and effort... you can get 1 done in a year, 2 and 3 will take 4-5 years of sustained effort and learning from failures. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" From rc040203 at freenet.de Wed May 2 07:17:18 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 09:17:18 +0200 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1176344287.13177.23.camel@cutter> <1176344404.5208.155.camel@erato.phig.org> <2cb10c440704120851j45984dabi273f57389e4aa37a@mail.gmail.com> <20070412160139.GW15933@deprecation.cyrius.com> <461ECEB1.7000301@redhat.com> <46267E12.4090500@fedoraproject.org> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1178090238.4283.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 08:21 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > >> Atleast in Fedora the division is clearly documented in the > >> packaging guidelines. > > > > Which is and has always been incompatible with the stated goals of the > > Fedora project. > > It may be worth pointing out here that Fedora currently only includes > objectives/packaging-guidelines to be opensource/redistributable, not > necessarily (100%) free, This sentence of yours doesn't match with current practices: From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?packaging#head-8be956fd12dbe4ae927e65c989e7e83b9fcc0b80 --- snip --- The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software. In accordance with that, all packages included in Fedora must be covered under an open source license. We clarify an open source license in three ways: * OSI-approved license. You can find the list of OSI approved licenses here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ * GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses. You can find the list here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses * GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses. You can find the list here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses If the license of a package isn't covered in one of those lists, urge the upstream maintainer to seek OSI-approval for their license here: http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval --- snip --- I.e. the Fedora definition of "OpenSource" is being redirected to "OSI" and the GPL. >From http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd --- snip --- 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. --- snip --- => The firmware packages do not fall under this definition. > and wrt *this* conversation, the Board > considered firmware to be an acceptable exception(1). This doesn't match with the Fedora definition of "OpenSource" listed above, and leave room for accusations to "FPB cheating to the community on the freedom of SW in Fedora" and/or "the FPB having dumped objectives". Given your rationale, I think the FPC should abandon tying contributed packages to the OSI and GPL to return to "applying the same rights on everyone". > (1) redistributability was considered good enough (for now), notably > because firmware is tied to hardware, and doesn't run on the host cpu. This rationale suffers from same defects as inclusion of other non-modifiable SW: You can't fix bugs nor modify it to adapt it to special demands, because you can't modify the SW being shipped. Wrt. firmware, it is even worse: Technically, the position of firmware is not unlike using "close source kernel modules". If a firmware bugs kills the kernel, the kernel devs will not be able to do much about it (They or an educated user can have a look into the firmware's sources and might even be able to fix it, but nobody inside of Fedora be able to ship a fixed package). Ralf From fedora at leemhuis.info Wed May 2 15:11:07 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 17:11:07 +0200 Subject: Some thoughts regarding the FESCo and Board interaction Message-ID: <4638AA0B.2050802@leemhuis.info> (sorry, long mail again :-/) Hi, after yesterdays meeting I'd though it might be helpful for everyone to outline some of my thoughts on the FESCo and Board interaction that lead me to writing http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/FESCoAndBoard how it looks like. It's not meant as a rant; mainly I hope this mail can help making the ideas behind that document more clear so we can work on something else that makes everyone happy (which seems to not be the case with the current document). = history view = When the merge was purposed and the question "what to do with FESCo then" came up for discussion it looked to *me* as some crucial people from the RH side signaled "FESCo is important, because the community feels represented by it and it works quite well in keeping Extras running". When we designed the new FESCo it was explicitly (see archives) be designed to be a successor of the old FESCo and the Core Cabal (and in parts the Packaging Committee). I can't remember who brought the "Core Cabal" into the game (and it doesn't matter much), but it seems to me now that people have different expectations of what the Core Cabal exactly did. To me as a outsider the Core Cabal afaics was directly (getting it done) or indirectly (it does not take care of each and every feature, but of some) be responsible for getting a Fedora release in shape and released every few months and keeping it maintained; e.g. create a Schedule, discuss some of the Fedora-specific Features that are important for a particular release, poke the right people to get the Features and packages in shape right in time, publish test versions and a final now and then; well that and a lot of other stuff that is needed to get a distro out. That's how I understood it -- which in parts seems to be wrong or interpreted in a different ways by other people. Anyway I started yelling when I noticed that those "former Core Cabal work" was not done by FESCo during F7 development. Instead: - some things got decided by the Board directly; those meetings have been hold on phone meetings in the past where only the Board members could join. Thus I as a outsider in parts got the feeling: there is a new cabal; it has four community members now, but it's still a cabal that is not much interested in other opinions as they discuss their stuff behind closed doors. The Board meets on IRC these days, so this point is in parts moot in between, but the Board afaics is still not working as good and transparent as FESCo or the Packaging Committee when it comes to getting those heard that are not part of the Board or in crucial positions (see below). - sometimes things were proposed to the list and discussed there without an outcome; then it happened now and then that developers that were in the best position simply did what they liked best without bothering to ask the proper Committee for advice or a decision (e.g. FESCo) -- but that's IMHo exactly what Committee's like FESCo IMHO are for: find a solution when one can't be reached in public discussions. (an no, no each and every detail need to be discussed; but if it got a public discussion because it's likely important then it should also be a decisions that should be done by a committee and not just my one developer that's in a good position; the community members that participated in those discussion otherwise might get the feeling "it's not worth discussing if someone simply does what he like without bothering what we tell him) - if FESCo doesn't do what the Core Cabal (whatever it is) what will be left for the new FESCo when the Board, Release-Engineering, EPEL, QA and Package Committee act on their own? Nearly nothing afaics: FESCo would mainly enforce what the Packaging Committee decided (even that might fall under the hood of releng) and organize the package contributors. A lot of other stuff like getting the repo in shape/rebuilded for a new release would move to other groups like QA or RelEng. That lead me to writing http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/FESCoAndBoard how it looks like. But well, what I like to see can be found below; it can be realized in a total different ways and I hope this mail is a step into the direction to maybe find another way that fits other people needs better. = what I'd like to see = What I want is mainly this: A committee that is responsible for the distro as a whole (creation, publishing, maintaining) and works similar to how FESCo, the Packaging Committee or EPEL act: public meetings, transparent decision process, a public schedule in the wiki, always summaries from the meeting, meetings get announced in time with a list of topics that are planed, community members propose topics to discuss and take part of the decisions process, always give people that can't join a meeting a chance to discuss stuff before it's finally getting decided/realized, a balanced mix of RH and non-RH members so both "camps" feel represented (until we are just "one camp" where nobody cares where people work). Stuff like that, so everyone inside or outside of RH that is not part of the Committee that makes a decisions has a chance to get heard to *influence* the decision *before* its made. The Fedora Project Board does some of this these days, but doesn't do it as good as FESCo or the other groups do or did (and even FESCo, EPEL or the Packaging Committee have still room of improvements IMHO, too (at least I had some thing on my agenda back when I was FESCO chair that never got realized). The committee should not only act like this, it should make sure that sub-committees below it work in a similar way: RelEng, EPEL, Fedora Packaging Group, QA, ... The committee should be respected by RH developers and the Fedora Contributors (Extras Packagers and other Contributors) outside of RH; FESCo had a good (albeit not perfect) fame in the Fedora Extras Packagers world, that's why keeping the name or the committee itself in a strong position had/has some appeal. The Fedora Project Board on the other hand is not that integrated in the Extras workflow; seems some a lot of Fedora Extras Contributors people are either not on fedora-advisory-board (it was invite only and maybe people missed the change or they are still feel bad about it) or they simply do not care. The committee should try to keep bureaucracy down, but on the other hand avoid hallway conversations. It should do everything that's needed to keep everyone inside or outside of RH aware of the ongoings and the decisions that in the end might be relevant for the distribution we create. That includes to announce a lot of stuff to mailing lists and discuss it there; and, if no agreement can be found by those that are involved in a discussion, let a committee decide. That overhead and especially a lot more work for some RH developers, but that's crucial to get the community properly involved IMHO so they feel respected and represented. And: the better you get the community involved the bigger the chances are that non-RH-people jump in to help out/get stuff done. The committee also needs a to interact a lot with RHEL managers when it comes to RH-interests like specific features or resale schedule. On the other hand it should also give the community some stuff it would like to see. Ask the Community which features it would like to see and pick some (two or three maybe?) and assign a developer to drive them to realize them together with the non-RH community (a key driver that has some minutes for it each day often is helpful to get the community organized and working productively); that should get people involved. With a bit of luck the community wants something that has benefits for RHEL, too ;-) Everything just my 2 cent. CU Thorsten "knurd" Leemhuis From rdieter at math.unl.edu Wed May 2 16:44:02 2007 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 11:44:02 -0500 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: <1178090238.4283.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1176344287.13177.23.camel@cutter> <1176344404.5208.155.camel@erato.phig.org> <2cb10c440704120851j45984dabi273f57389e4aa37a@mail.gmail.com> <20070412160139.GW15933@deprecation.cyrius.com> <461ECEB1.7000301@redhat.com> <46267E12.4090500@fedoraproject.org> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> <1178090238.4283.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <4638BFD2.4000609@math.unl.edu> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 08:21 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: >> Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> >> Atleast in Fedora the division is clearly documented in the >> >> packaging guidelines. >> > >> > Which is and has always been incompatible with the stated >> > goals of the Fedora project. >> >> It may be worth pointing out here that Fedora currently only includes >> objectives/packaging-guidelines to be opensource/redistributable, not >> necessarily (100%) free, > > This sentence of yours doesn't match with current practices: ... > The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to > build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from > open source software. I fail to see any mismatch: I said opensource, the "goal" says opensource. Unless you're trying to extend this goal to firmware, but we'd already (hopefully) established clearly that this is an *exception*. > => The firmware packages do not fall under this definition. Right, since *firm*ware != *soft*ware and was the point of my "doesn't run on host-cpu" qualifier. The rest I pretty much agree with, and certainly in a perfect world we'd all love 100% opensource firmware too. -- Rex From smooge at gmail.com Wed May 2 21:03:46 2007 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 15:03:46 -0600 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: <4638BFD2.4000609@math.unl.edu> References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> <1178090238.4283.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <4638BFD2.4000609@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <80d7e4090705021403u4dde60d0lfdd37cf7c8242b3d@mail.gmail.com> On 5/2/07, Rex Dieter wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 08:21 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > >> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> > >> >> Atleast in Fedora the division is clearly documented in the > >> >> packaging guidelines. > >> > > >> > Which is and has always been incompatible with the stated > >> > goals of the Fedora project. > >> > >> It may be worth pointing out here that Fedora currently only includes > >> objectives/packaging-guidelines to be opensource/redistributable, not > >> necessarily (100%) free, > > > > This sentence of yours doesn't match with current practices: > ... > > The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to > > build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from > > open source software. > > I fail to see any mismatch: I said opensource, the "goal" says > opensource. Unless you're trying to extend this goal to firmware, but > we'd already (hopefully) established clearly that this is an *exception*. > > > => The firmware packages do not fall under this definition. > > Right, since *firm*ware != *soft*ware and was the point of my "doesn't > run on host-cpu" qualifier. The rest I pretty much agree with, and > certainly in a perfect world we'd all love 100% opensource firmware too. > I think the difference between firm and soft is non-existant in some eyes. If it is a bit, it must be documented and must be hackable. I don't think that any debate/reasonable questions would change this world-view. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" From rc040203 at freenet.de Thu May 3 03:35:26 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 05:35:26 +0200 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090705021403u4dde60d0lfdd37cf7c8242b3d@mail.gmail.com> References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> <1178090238.4283.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <4638BFD2.4000609@math.unl.edu> <80d7e4090705021403u4dde60d0lfdd37cf7c8242b3d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1178163326.4283.381.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 15:03 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 5/2/07, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 08:21 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > >> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > >> > > >> >> Atleast in Fedora the division is clearly documented in the > > >> >> packaging guidelines. > > >> > > > >> > Which is and has always been incompatible with the stated > > >> > goals of the Fedora project. > > >> > > >> It may be worth pointing out here that Fedora currently only includes > > >> objectives/packaging-guidelines to be opensource/redistributable, not > > >> necessarily (100%) free, > > > > > > This sentence of yours doesn't match with current practices: > > ... > > > The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to > > > build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from > > > open source software. > > > > I fail to see any mismatch: I said opensource, the "goal" says > > opensource. Unless you're trying to extend this goal to firmware, but > > we'd already (hopefully) established clearly that this is an *exception*. > > > > > => The firmware packages do not fall under this definition. > > > > Right, since *firm*ware != *soft*ware Great, what do you think do embedded SW devs do? They don't develop SW? They don't write programs, libraries, ...? Are you really serious? > and was the point of my "doesn't > > run on host-cpu" qualifier. The rest I pretty much agree with, and > > certainly in a perfect world we'd all love 100% opensource firmware too. > I think the difference between firm and soft is non-existant in some > eyes. Right, this difference doesn't exist. In general, "firmware" are binary images (a container) and can contain arbitrary things to be processed in arbitrary ways. In most cases, "firmware" will contain executable code and data being started by some kind of "loader" on a device. In a nutshell, to me, trying to separate "firmware" from "software" is as silly as trying to define "software" as being stored on "floppy". > If it is a bit, it must be documented and must be hackable. I > don't think that any debate/reasonable questions would change this > world-view. Right. I find the argumentation being used to wrt. firmware/SW and the Open/Free Software, to be "lawyerish language", being utilized to construct a case by splitting hairs on wording. Did former US Pres. Clinton inhale? Did he have sex with M.L.? We all know, he didn't. Is Fedora a pure OSS system? We all know it is. Ralf From smooge at gmail.com Thu May 3 17:04:00 2007 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 11:04:00 -0600 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: <1178163326.4283.381.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> <1178090238.4283.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <4638BFD2.4000609@math.unl.edu> <80d7e4090705021403u4dde60d0lfdd37cf7c8242b3d@mail.gmail.com> <1178163326.4283.381.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <80d7e4090705031004t22b5d7e7kda38c19d44f270b2@mail.gmail.com> On 5/2/07, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 15:03 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On 5/2/07, Rex Dieter wrote: > Right. I find the argumentation being used to wrt. firmware/SW and the > Open/Free Software, to be "lawyerish language", being utilized to > construct a case by splitting hairs on wording. > > Did former US Pres. Clinton inhale? Did he have sex with M.L.? We all > know, he didn't. > > Is Fedora a pure OSS system? We all know it is. > Ok it isnt. It probably isnt going to be for any near time. Only hardwork on the part of a SIG has any chance of making it work. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" From aoliva at redhat.com Thu May 3 22:36:32 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 19:36:32 -0300 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090705011116n5b5089dh42a37226d323b90a@mail.gmail.com> (Stephen John Smoogen's message of "Tue\, 1 May 2007 12\:16\:59 -0600") References: <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <46373EF2.2020909@math.unl.edu> <46375EE9.5090106@fedoraproject.org> <20070501155826.GA29555@domsch.com> <80d7e4090705011116n5b5089dh42a37226d323b90a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 1, 2007, "Stephen John Smoogen" wrote: > First doing this breaks the "Work with Upstream" on this. > I would say that the first step would be for Alexandre Oliva and > similar minded people to create a SIG and then build a working > kernel+tools around Fedora 7 final to get a working design done. It looks like there's a lot of confusion as to what I'm talking about. For the nth time, I'm not talking about removing the non-Free firmware that's "hidden" in the kernel. Not doing so is a stand-still that might be acceptable. I'm talking about *not* adding *more* non-Free firmware as separate packages. Adding them is a step away from freedom, the stated goal of the project. That said, yes, cleaning the Fedora kernel from non-Free firmware sounds like an interesting project I should probably get my hands on. But don't let this other topic get you confused as to the point I'm trying to bring up here. It's just a distraction. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From aoliva at redhat.com Thu May 3 22:48:12 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 19:48:12 -0300 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: <46375E7A.1080800@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Tue\, 01 May 2007 21\:06\:26 +0530") References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1176344287.13177.23.camel@cutter> <1176344404.5208.155.camel@erato.phig.org> <2cb10c440704120851j45984dabi273f57389e4aa37a@mail.gmail.com> <20070412160139.GW15933@deprecation.cyrius.com> <461ECEB1.7000301@redhat.com> <46267E12.4090500@fedoraproject.org> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <46375E7A.1080800@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 1, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> i) I'm not. The FSF did, and did it a while ago, before even thinking >> about removing stuff from the kernel was thinkable. > It wasn't unthinkable at any point of time. We can claim that Fedora > thinks that a distribution without the firmware we include is > unthinkable. Different meaning of unthinkable here. I meant unthinkable as in "way too hard to do", not as in "doing it would lead to an unusable result". > There is no public statement on the FSF website on this and there is > no differentiation between distributions which include firmware in the > kernel and which include them. Why aren't you changing it to educate > end users? Well, let's see... Because my hacking into the FSF web site wouldn't be a nice thing to do? Is it really so hard to understand that I'm affiliated with FSFLA, a different, independent organization, and that we have no control whatsoever over what the FSF publishes, be it on its own web site, be it on the site of the GNU project? >> Which is and has always been incompatible with the stated goals of the >> Fedora project. > Yes, it's called a exception for a reason. Question, is it a goal of the Fedora project to build an OS entirely out of Free Software, or is the goal to build an OS out of Free Software except where that might cause some inconvenience to some users? In other words, are *we* going to actively pursue the goal of removing the non-Free Software that's currently in the distro, or are *you* going to keep on adding non-Free Software to it? > Yes it was [too late]. It always will be until there is more > resources to tackle this issue. How honest is it to claim that this is the primary goal, then? While at the same time actively taking steps away from that goal, no less :-/ -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu May 3 23:11:32 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 04:41:32 +0530 Subject: LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise In-Reply-To: References: <461D8225.4050907@domsch.com> <1176344287.13177.23.camel@cutter> <1176344404.5208.155.camel@erato.phig.org> <2cb10c440704120851j45984dabi273f57389e4aa37a@mail.gmail.com> <20070412160139.GW15933@deprecation.cyrius.com> <461ECEB1.7000301@redhat.com> <46267E12.4090500@fedoraproject.org> <1177891729.3836.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463600BA.5010402@fedoraproject.org> <46363C2F.5070401@fedoraproject.org> <46375E7A.1080800@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <463A6C24.8020309@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Well, let's see... Because my hacking into the FSF web site wouldn't > be a nice thing to do? > > Is it really so hard to understand that I'm affiliated with FSFLA, a > different, independent organization, and that we have no control > whatsoever over what the FSF publishes, be it on its own web site, be > it on the site of the GNU project? That part is indeed hard to understand. If a organization very closely affiliated to FSF can't convince it on what it believes to be a good thing then what are the chances of it convincing others of it's message? If you can't talk to each other don't bother talking to other people about it. As simple as that. > In other words, are *we* going to actively pursue the goal of removing > the non-Free Software that's currently in the distro, or are *you* > going to keep on adding non-Free Software to it? Look, I am on *your side* but you are not helping your goals from this discussion. I am waiting on FSF to respond to my questions which includes firmware. When I get back some answers we can discuss what exactly we need to do. I am not going to advocate any changes at all till I understand the details completely. > How honest is it to claim that this is the primary goal, then? It is pretty honest. You got to stop discussing this now and come up with a solid plan post Fedora 7 release so that we could do something about how we are dealing with firmware outside the kernel and you could help in that effort. Making firmware packages a choice during installation letting them know of the exceptions is certainly possible for the regular non live image spin and we could even create a live cd spin without that firmware if you want to take ownership of that. The tools are available in the repository. > While at the same time actively taking steps away from that goal, no > less :-/ Things happen that way at times. Progress is not linear. Rahul From poelstra at redhat.com Fri May 4 23:19:01 2007 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 16:19:01 -0700 Subject: Board Meeting recap and IRC log for 2007-05-01 Message-ID: <463BBF65.9030508@redhat.com> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2007-05-01 = Fedora Project Board Meeting (2007-05-01) = * IRC only, no telephone conference [[TableOfContents]] == Role Call == * Present: mspevack, blizzard, skvidal, stickster, jeremy, notting, mdomsch * Absent: rdieter, mether, gregdek == FESCO/Board/Sub-project governance starting with F8 == * Lengthy discussion about what FESCO's role and responsibilities should be * Read the IRC log (below) for all the juicy discussion * Lots of ideas discussed, no hard decisions reached * Post your thoughts to the list == EPEL == * bpepple: I don't believe there's anything FESCo needs decided right now by the Board. * political problems right now with some 3rd party repos/packager's request that we add repotags--knurd will report to the list in a week or so == Other Topics for Discussion == * Merge happening at noon Wednesday * PPC box is on the way to the data center, the x86 builder is already there but not racked AFAIK (mmcgrath). * f13 has started a thread where people recommend names for the release? Ie: Bordeaux, Zod, ??? * mdomsch comments briefly on Dell's going to pre-isntall ubuntu * the decision was easy: look at dellideastorm.com, and 80% of the people on there asked for Ubuntu * we only have the resources to factory install one, but we'll post links to other Distro's web pages that list certifications, if they exist == Next meeting == * No board meeting next week due to RH Summit in San Diego. * TBD == IRC Log == ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please make corrections to the wiki if I misrepresented something. Thanks, John From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon May 7 22:06:40 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 03:36:40 +0530 Subject: Everything spin? Message-ID: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> Hi This one seems to be still cat on the wall. Can I get a final word on whether there would a be a spin of all packages in Fedora 7? I would prefer this. I have heard of two oppositions so far Mirror space: I think we can do a torrent only release and let any mirrors carry it if they want to. Not enough testing: Since we didn't do such a spin for the test releases this can be problematic but I think most of the popular packages were already tested to a good extent in the other spins. Might call it a experimental spin for this release if that helps. I would prefer having such a spin for this release since there are folks around who don't have much of net access and require packages to be available on the media to be of any use to them. Rahul From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Mon May 7 23:15:56 2007 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 18:15:56 -0500 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1178579756.25550.1.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 03:36 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > This one seems to be still cat on the wall. Can I get a final word on > whether there would a be a spin of all packages in Fedora 7? I would > prefer this. I have heard of two oppositions so far > > Mirror space: I think we can do a torrent only release and let any > mirrors carry it if they want to. > > Not enough testing: Since we didn't do such a spin for the test > releases this can be problematic but I think most of the popular > packages were already tested to a good extent in the other spins. Might > call it a experimental spin for this release if that helps. > > I would prefer having such a spin for this release since there are folks > around who don't have much of net access and require packages to be > available on the media to be of any use to them. With the tools available, anyone can create a spin such as this. Just pointing that out. josh From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue May 8 04:40:01 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 06:40:01 +0200 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <1178579756.25550.1.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <1178579756.25550.1.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <463FFF21.3030501@leemhuis.info> On 08.05.2007 01:15, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 03:36 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> This one seems to be still cat on the wall. Can I get a final word on >> whether there would a be a spin of all packages in Fedora 7? I would >> prefer this. I have heard of two oppositions so far >> >> Mirror space: I think we can do a torrent only release and let any >> mirrors carry it if they want to. >> >> Not enough testing: Since we didn't do such a spin for the test >> releases this can be problematic but I think most of the popular >> packages were already tested to a good extent in the other spins. Might >> call it a experimental spin for this release if that helps. >> >> I would prefer having such a spin for this release since there are folks >> around who don't have much of net access and require packages to be >> available on the media to be of any use to them. > > With the tools available, anyone can create a spin such as this. Just > pointing that out. If we want to got that route I'd say we at least need a proper and well-tested "how to build your own everything spin in less then ten steps" document. CU thl From jkeating at redhat.com Tue May 8 04:56:07 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 21:56:07 -0700 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <463FFF21.3030501@leemhuis.info> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <1178579756.25550.1.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <463FFF21.3030501@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <200705072156.07459.jkeating@redhat.com> On Monday 07 May 2007 21:40:01 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > If we want to got that route I'd say we at least need a proper and > well-tested "how to build your own everything spin in less then ten > steps" document. Only so many hours in the day... -- 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 May 8 05:24:55 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 07:24:55 +0200 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <200705072156.07459.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <1178579756.25550.1.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <463FFF21.3030501@leemhuis.info> <200705072156.07459.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <464009A7.1000001@leemhuis.info> On 08.05.2007 06:56, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Monday 07 May 2007 21:40:01 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> If we want to got that route I'd say we at least need a proper and >> well-tested "how to build your own everything spin in less then ten >> steps" document. > Only so many hours in the day... Sorry, I didn't want to poke you (or everyone else) to do it. I just wanted to show a alternative. Like Rahul I'd like to see a everything spin. But well, a easy to follow howto might be enough -- and has the additional benefit that users learn how to create a custom distro on their own. So the question I currently have: how many steps would such a howto have? And how hard would it be to follow for non-geeks? CU thl From jkeating at redhat.com Tue May 8 05:40:09 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 22:40:09 -0700 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <464009A7.1000001@leemhuis.info> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <200705072156.07459.jkeating@redhat.com> <464009A7.1000001@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <200705072240.09866.jkeating@redhat.com> On Monday 07 May 2007 22:24:55 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > So the question I currently have: how many steps would such a howto > have? And how hard would it be to follow for non-geeks? Shouldn't be too many steps. Should be easy to follow. I'd like to include a config that just works for this in the last pungi release for Fedora 7. -- 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 May 8 14:14:36 2007 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 10:14:36 -0400 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <200705072240.09866.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <200705072156.07459.jkeating@redhat.com> <464009A7.1000001@leemhuis.info> <200705072240.09866.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1178633676.5959.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 22:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Monday 07 May 2007 22:24:55 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > So the question I currently have: how many steps would such a howto > > have? And how hard would it be to follow for non-geeks? > > Shouldn't be too many steps. Should be easy to follow. I'd like to include a > config that just works for this in the last pungi release for Fedora 7. Immediately after I get done with the IG work, if anyone drafts the easy steps on the wiki, I'll turn it into a formal document. You need not use complete sentences, just notes are enough. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- 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 cnegus at rucls.net Wed May 9 14:53:58 2007 From: cnegus at rucls.net (Chris Negus) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 09:53:58 -0500 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <200705072240.09866.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <200705072156.07459.jkeating@redhat.com> <464009A7.1000001@leemhuis.info> <200705072240.09866.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1178722438.2531.110.camel@einstein> On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 22:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Monday 07 May 2007 22:24:55 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > So the question I currently have: how many steps would such a howto > > have? And how hard would it be to follow for non-geeks? > > Shouldn't be too many steps. Should be easy to follow. I'd like to include a > config that just works for this in the last pungi release for Fedora 7. Given the size of the final x86 Fedora 7 repo, will it be possible to fit all binary packages on a single install image of about 8GB or less? If so, it would be great to have an official DVD image like that. You could share it over bittorrent and those who have a DVD-9 burner can start out with everything on a single disc. Otherwise, what would be the form in which we would get the Everything packages to work from? Two standard size DVDs? -- Chris Negus From jkeating at redhat.com Wed May 9 15:02:19 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 08:02:19 -0700 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <1178722438.2531.110.camel@einstein> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <200705072240.09866.jkeating@redhat.com> <1178722438.2531.110.camel@einstein> Message-ID: <200705090802.20003.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 09 May 2007 07:53:58 Chris Negus wrote: > Given the size of the final x86 Fedora 7 repo, will it be possible to > fit all binary packages on a single install image of about 8GB or less? > If so, it would be great to have an official DVD image like that. You > could share it over bittorrent and those who have a DVD-9 burner can > start out with everything on a single disc. > > Otherwise, what would be the form in which we would get the Everything > packages to work from? Two standard size DVDs? If I remember correctly, it was over 8 gigs. 4.5~ gigs on the first DVD, 3.7 on the second DVD. This was just i386, not x86_64 where there is multilib to contend with. The compose took the form of split media that was DVD size. It would be an insane amount of CD media. -- 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 cnegus at rucls.net Wed May 9 15:34:38 2007 From: cnegus at rucls.net (Chris Negus) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 10:34:38 -0500 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <200705090802.20003.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <200705072240.09866.jkeating@redhat.com> <1178722438.2531.110.camel@einstein> <200705090802.20003.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1178724878.2531.135.camel@einstein> On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 08:02 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 09 May 2007 07:53:58 Chris Negus wrote: > > Otherwise, what would be the form in which we would get the Everything > > packages to work from? Two standard size DVDs? > > If I remember correctly, it was over 8 gigs. 4.5~ gigs on the first DVD, 3.7 > on the second DVD. This was just i386, not x86_64 where there is multilib to > contend with. The compose took the form of split media that was DVD size. > It would be an insane amount of CD media. Okay. Thanks. Then will those two DVDs be released with Fedora 7 general availability? I didn't notice any test versions available on torrent.fedoraproject.org. -- Chris Negus From jkeating at redhat.com Wed May 9 15:36:08 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 08:36:08 -0700 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <1178724878.2531.135.camel@einstein> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <200705090802.20003.jkeating@redhat.com> <1178724878.2531.135.camel@einstein> Message-ID: <200705090836.12190.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 09 May 2007 08:34:38 Chris Negus wrote: > Okay. Thanks. Then will those two DVDs be released with Fedora 7 general > availability? I didn't notice any test versions available on > torrent.fedoraproject.org. I'm not currently planning on it. If the Fedora board decides that it's a good enough idea and out weighs our space/mirror/bandwidth concerns we'll make it happen. But... pain. -- 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 kanarip at kanarip.com Wed May 9 17:29:25 2007 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 19:29:25 +0200 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <1178633676.5959.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <200705072156.07459.jkeating@redhat.com> <464009A7.1000001@leemhuis.info> <200705072240.09866.jkeating@redhat.com> <1178633676.5959.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <464204F5.2070400@kanarip.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 22:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Monday 07 May 2007 22:24:55 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>> So the question I currently have: how many steps would such a howto >>> have? And how hard would it be to follow for non-geeks? >> Shouldn't be too many steps. Should be easy to follow. I'd like to include a >> config that just works for this in the last pungi release for Fedora 7. > > Immediately after I get done with the IG work, if anyone drafts the easy > steps on the wiki, I'll turn it into a formal document. You need not > use complete sentences, just notes are enough. > This kind of document may not be needed if Revisor gets through it's review for submission to the Fedora repository. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen - -kanarip -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQgT1KN6f2pNCvwgRAq3FAJ4iO1CDtkyKqxQ6t0ln5giBP5VtaACgq6/8 ccORRVS3CjzQyaK5dvLFSAw= =FKRd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jkeating at redhat.com Wed May 9 18:03:05 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 11:03:05 -0700 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <464204F5.2070400@kanarip.com> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <1178633676.5959.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> <464204F5.2070400@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <200705091103.09961.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 09 May 2007 10:29:25 Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > This kind of document may not be needed if Revisor gets through it's > review for submission to the Fedora repository. Does revisor actually allow for a manfest of '*'? Not every package is represented through comps to the graphical package selection tools. Just curious. -- 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 aoliva at redhat.com Wed May 9 22:14:42 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 19:14:42 -0300 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Tue\, 08 May 2007 03\:36\:40 +0530") References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 7, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Mirror space: I think we can do a torrent only release and let any > mirrors carry it if they want to. jigdo -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From aoliva at redhat.com Wed May 9 22:41:21 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 19:41:21 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement Message-ID: In our packaging guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-76294f12c6b481792eb001ba9763d95e2792e825 we state: The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software. In accordance with that, all packages included in Fedora must be covered under an open source license. We clarify an open source license in three ways: [...] Drawing a line on licensing requirements is good, but I've recently realized (see below) that this is not quite enough to ensure that Fedora users aren't misled into loss of freedom by the Fedora project itself. Consider a Free Software package licensed under a permissive license, such as the MIT license. Consider that someone makes changes to the program and releases the whole under the same license, but refrains from publishing the corresponding sources. Is this modified package eligible for inclusion in Fedora? It certainly is under a Free Software license, but it certainly isn't Free Software any more. This is not a theoretical situation. For the past month, I've been working on code that was mostly Free Software, but whose integrator had refrained from publishing corresponding sources of included Free Software packages, even the LGPLed ones. Not the only kind of license infringement in that package, mind you. They even licensed their *own* code under the LGPL, but they didn't publish the corresponding source code either (which AFAIK is not a license violation AFAIK, but IANAL) A few more details at http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/157 An upcoming article will cover it in far more detail. Anyhow, the point is that it's not enough for there to be an applicable license that is a Free Software license (or "open source license", per the definition in the Fedora packaging guidelines). It would be better to state that the software, as distributed by the Fedora project, must abide by the Free Software definition and (or?) the Open-Source Software definition. Perhaps it would make sense to also add a note explaining that Fedora is committed to not distributing [non-firmware] software in such a way that the software wouldn't abide by these definitions, from the point of view of the recipients. E.g. software licensed under a Free Software license but without corresponding sources. If the reader finds deviations s/he should report them. Makes sense? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed May 9 22:44:54 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 17:44:54 -0500 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1178750694.3570.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 19:41 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Perhaps it would make sense to also add a note explaining that Fedora > is committed to not distributing [non-firmware] software in such a way > that the software wouldn't abide by these definitions, from the point > of view of the recipients. E.g. software licensed under a Free > Software license but without corresponding sources. If the reader > finds deviations s/he should report them. Or perhaps, more simply, that all software [non-firmware] in Fedora must include source code. ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed May 9 22:46:15 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 04:16:15 +0530 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <46424F37.2030809@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 7, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Mirror space: I think we can do a torrent only release and let any >> mirrors carry it if they want to. > > jigdo Not a answer for Fedora 7 unless someone works on it immediately. Torrent is possible since we already have the infrastructure. Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed May 9 22:48:04 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 04:18:04 +0530 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > In our packaging guidelines > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-76294f12c6b481792eb001ba9763d95e2792e825 > we state: > > The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community > to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively > from open source software. In accordance with that, all packages > included in Fedora must be covered under an open source license. > > We clarify an open source license in three ways: > [...] > > Drawing a line on licensing requirements is good, but I've recently > realized (see below) that this is not quite enough to ensure that > Fedora users aren't misled into loss of freedom by the Fedora project > itself. > > Consider a Free Software package licensed under a permissive license, > such as the MIT license. > > Consider that someone makes changes to the program and releases the > whole under the same license, but refrains from publishing the > corresponding sources. > > Is this modified package eligible for inclusion in Fedora? > > It certainly is under a Free Software license, but it certainly isn't > Free Software any more. > > > This is not a theoretical situation. For the past month, I've been > working on code that was mostly Free Software, but whose integrator > had refrained from publishing corresponding sources of included Free > Software packages, even the LGPLed ones. Not the only kind of license > infringement in that package, mind you. > > They even licensed their *own* code under the LGPL, but they didn't > publish the corresponding source code either (which AFAIK is not a > license violation AFAIK, but IANAL) > > A few more details at http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/157 > An upcoming article will cover it in far more detail. > > > Anyhow, the point is that it's not enough for there to be an > applicable license that is a Free Software license (or "open source > license", per the definition in the Fedora packaging guidelines). > > It would be better to state that the software, as distributed by the > Fedora project, must abide by the Free Software definition and (or?) > the Open-Source Software definition. > > Perhaps it would make sense to also add a note explaining that Fedora > is committed to not distributing [non-firmware] software in such a way > that the software wouldn't abide by these definitions, from the point > of view of the recipients. E.g. software licensed under a Free > Software license but without corresponding sources. If the reader > finds deviations s/he should report them. > > > Makes sense? Doesn't http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-c23c2cd3782be842dc7ab40c35199c07cfbfe347 already cover all that? Rahul From tibbs at math.uh.edu Wed May 9 22:51:40 2007 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: 09 May 2007 17:51:40 -0500 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >>>>> "AO" == Alexandre Oliva writes: AO> Consider that someone makes changes to the program and releases AO> the whole under the same license, but refrains from publishing the AO> corresponding sources. How on earth would we then build it? - J< From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Wed May 9 23:13:18 2007 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 18:13:18 -0500 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1178752398.11253.0.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 04:18 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > In our packaging guidelines > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-76294f12c6b481792eb001ba9763d95e2792e825 > > we state: > > > > The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community > > to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively > > from open source software. In accordance with that, all packages > > included in Fedora must be covered under an open source license. > > > > We clarify an open source license in three ways: > > [...] > > > > Drawing a line on licensing requirements is good, but I've recently > > realized (see below) that this is not quite enough to ensure that > > Fedora users aren't misled into loss of freedom by the Fedora project > > itself. > > > > Consider a Free Software package licensed under a permissive license, > > such as the MIT license. > > > > Consider that someone makes changes to the program and releases the > > whole under the same license, but refrains from publishing the > > corresponding sources. > > > > Is this modified package eligible for inclusion in Fedora? > > > > It certainly is under a Free Software license, but it certainly isn't > > Free Software any more. > > > > > > This is not a theoretical situation. For the past month, I've been > > working on code that was mostly Free Software, but whose integrator > > had refrained from publishing corresponding sources of included Free > > Software packages, even the LGPLed ones. Not the only kind of license > > infringement in that package, mind you. > > > > They even licensed their *own* code under the LGPL, but they didn't > > publish the corresponding source code either (which AFAIK is not a > > license violation AFAIK, but IANAL) > > > > A few more details at http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/157 > > An upcoming article will cover it in far more detail. > > > > > > Anyhow, the point is that it's not enough for there to be an > > applicable license that is a Free Software license (or "open source > > license", per the definition in the Fedora packaging guidelines). > > > > It would be better to state that the software, as distributed by the > > Fedora project, must abide by the Free Software definition and (or?) > > the Open-Source Software definition. > > > > Perhaps it would make sense to also add a note explaining that Fedora > > is committed to not distributing [non-firmware] software in such a way > > that the software wouldn't abide by these definitions, from the point > > of view of the recipients. E.g. software licensed under a Free > > Software license but without corresponding sources. If the reader > > finds deviations s/he should report them. > > > > > > Makes sense? > > Doesn't > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-c23c2cd3782be842dc7ab40c35199c07cfbfe347 > already cover all that? Yes, from what I can see. josh From aoliva at redhat.com Wed May 9 23:33:50 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 20:33:50 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Thu\, 10 May 2007 04\:18\:04 +0530") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 9, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> It would be better to state that the software, as distributed by the >> Fedora project, must abide by the Free Software definition and (or?) >> the Open-Source Software definition. >> >> Perhaps it would make sense to also add a note explaining that Fedora >> is committed to not distributing [non-firmware] software in such a way >> that the software wouldn't abide by these definitions, from the point >> of view of the recipients. E.g. software licensed under a Free >> Software license but without corresponding sources. If the reader >> finds deviations s/he should report them. > Doesn't > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-c23c2cd3782be842dc7ab40c35199c07cfbfe347 > already cover all that? At first, I almost agreed with it. Sorry that I forgot we already had that bit. However, thinking further, I came to the conclusion that it indeed covers the clarification note in the second paragraph above, but it doens't achieve the major goal of the first paragraph. Omitting sources is just one of many ways people came up with to deprive users of freedom. Another possibility is that of restrictive patent licenses, and the recent creative patent agreements we recently learned about, such as that between Microsoft and Novell. Yet another possibility would be trademark agreements that effectively limited Fedora users' freedoms. It would be far more comforting if Fedora committed itself to respect its users' freedoms in the general terms established by the FSD and the OSD, rather than to commit itself to not disrespect them in some particular ways. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From dennis at ausil.us Wed May 9 23:35:38 2007 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 18:35:38 -0500 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <1178750694.3570.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1178750694.3570.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200705091835.38606.dennis@ausil.us> Once upon a time Wednesday 09 May 2007, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 19:41 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Perhaps it would make sense to also add a note explaining that Fedora > > is committed to not distributing [non-firmware] software in such a way > > that the software wouldn't abide by these definitions, from the point > > of view of the recipients. E.g. software licensed under a Free > > Software license but without corresponding sources. If the reader > > finds deviations s/he should report them. > > Or perhaps, more simply, that all software [non-firmware] in Fedora must > include source code. I think its implicit that it has the source code. another requirement is that everything needs to be built on our buildsystem. So if they dont release source we cant build and its not acceptable. Thats the reason we pulled XaraLX from the distro they had a binary library Dennis -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aoliva at redhat.com Wed May 9 23:41:36 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 20:41:36 -0300 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <46424F37.2030809@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Thu\, 10 May 2007 04\:16\:15 +0530") References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <46424F37.2030809@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 9, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On May 7, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> >>> Mirror space: I think we can do a torrent only release and let any >>> mirrors carry it if they want to. >> >> jigdo > Not a answer for Fedora 7 unless someone works on it > immediately. What do you mean? jigdo *is* in Fedora Extras already. It's just a matter of running it, and it can even be done after the isos are spun. From the point of view of the user, all it takes is an http server, as usual, so no infrastructure work is needed. Unless you mean jigdo should run as part of the iso spins. Here's the script I've been using myself to create jigdo images of Fedora ISOs, to save space in my local mirrors, using an old jigdo binary I've downloaded many many moons ago. I haven't tried it with the Fedora Extras version of jigdo. If there's interest in using it, or portions thereof, I hereby license it under GPLv2+. It does not remove jigdo-file-cache.db; this has to be done separately. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: fciso2jigdo Type: application/octet-stream Size: 754 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed May 9 23:42:22 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 18:42:22 -0500 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1178754142.3570.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 20:33 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Another possibility is that of restrictive patent licenses, and the > recent creative patent agreements we recently learned about, such as > that between Microsoft and Novell. Restrictive patent licenses don't qualify for Fedora as is. > Yet another possibility would be trademark agreements that effectively > limited Fedora users' freedoms. Trademark or patent agreements are a board issue, but I can't see the board agreeing to those sorts of things. ~spot From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Wed May 9 23:40:42 2007 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 18:40:42 -0500 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1178754042.11253.19.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 20:33 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Omitting sources is just one of many ways people came up with to > deprive users of freedom. > > Another possibility is that of restrictive patent licenses, and the > recent creative patent agreements we recently learned about, such as > that between Microsoft and Novell. Restrictive patent licenses such as what? I know of no such license that is usable for a package in Fedora. And Fedora cannot do anything about the Microsoft/Novell deal. They are exercising a loophole in the GPL. How is Fedora supposed to fight that? > Yet another possibility would be trademark agreements that effectively > limited Fedora users' freedoms. Such as the one with the Mozilla for Firefox/Thunderbird? That is an issue to take to the Board. > It would be far more comforting if Fedora committed itself to respect > its users' freedoms in the general terms established by the FSD and > the OSD, rather than to commit itself to not disrespect them in some > particular ways. We _do_ use the OSD/OSI definition. It's the very first license category on that page. The ones that follow are actually more restrictive. josh From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu May 10 00:16:21 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 05:46:21 +0530 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > It would be far more comforting if Fedora committed itself to respect > its users' freedoms in the general terms established by the FSD and > the OSD, rather than to commit itself to not disrespect them in some > particular ways. Commitment is the first thing established in the guidelines but what follows is clarifications and exceptions on how it applies to the entire distribution instead of merely relying on abstract definitions of freedom. Does FSD apply to GNU FDL including it's invariant sections? If you can suggest some precise wording that would improve or clarify the guidelines please do. Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu May 10 00:39:30 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 06:09:30 +0530 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <46424F37.2030809@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <464269C2.6010105@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 9, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> On May 7, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> >>>> Mirror space: I think we can do a torrent only release and let any >>>> mirrors carry it if they want to. >>> jigdo > >> Not a answer for Fedora 7 unless someone works on it >> immediately. > > What do you mean? jigdo *is* in Fedora Extras already. > > It's just a matter of running it, and it can even be done after the > isos are spun. From the point of view of the user, all it takes is an > http server, as usual, so no infrastructure work is needed. Unless > you mean jigdo should run as part of the iso spins. Yes. That's the only way to do it properly I think. It should part of the infrastructure and release process. I will post to Fedora infrastructure list about this. Rahul From jkeating at redhat.com Thu May 10 00:46:20 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 17:46:20 -0700 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <464269C2.6010105@fedoraproject.org> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <464269C2.6010105@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200705091746.23702.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 09 May 2007 17:39:30 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > It's just a matter of running it, and it can even be done after the > > isos are spun. ?From the point of view of the user, all it takes is an > > http server, as usual, so no infrastructure work is needed. ?Unless > > you mean jigdo should run as part of the iso spins. > > Yes. That's the only way to do it properly I think. It should part of > the infrastructure and release process. I will post to Fedora > infrastructure list about this. It needs to be used from test1 on to work out any particular bugs with creating the files as part of the compose process, and make sure that there isn't anything that is going to cause problems. We have a hard enough time with people getting the isos normally and burning them correctly that many of us are not all that keen on yet another method of downloading. It took a while and many tests with bittorrent before we started to feel comfortable. Turning this on, for the final release, without having tested it at all before, is not a winning prospect. -- 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 mlum at redhat.com Thu May 10 00:51:02 2007 From: mlum at redhat.com (Margaret Lum) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 17:51:02 -0700 Subject: Status of JSS in Fedora? Message-ID: <46426C76.6090303@redhat.com> Hi folks, I've noticed this package has been collecting dust for awhile. My team needs this in our first open source release of our product (Certificate System), and I'm working on a parallel port (from internal source) to the build system here @RH. If this is not the most productive forum for such approval, please point me in the right direction. This package was already submitted, but it's almost 2 months past the initial file date. The issue that needs both resolution and an immediate updated status is: Bugzilla Bug 230262 : Review Request: jss - Java Security Services (JSS) Thank you for your time and understanding. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3229 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From blizzard at redhat.com Thu May 10 04:30:00 2007 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 00:30:00 -0400 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <1178754042.11253.19.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <1178754042.11253.19.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1178771400.4867.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 18:40 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Yet another possibility would be trademark agreements that effectively > > limited Fedora users' freedoms. > > Such as the one with the Mozilla for Firefox/Thunderbird? That is an > issue to take to the Board. Fedora's own trademark guidelines are similarly restrictive to the Mozilla ones for FF + TB. Hypocrisy is fine in some cases, I'm just pointing it out. --Chris From bugs.michael at gmx.net Thu May 10 09:41:31 2007 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:41:31 +0200 Subject: python-kid on buildsys server In-Reply-To: <20070405172331.46ee0fec.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20070315220812.8d6dc388.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070320140320.9e79c10e.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <460893C8.2090309@redhat.com> <20070327120220.4b6c6510.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070405114453.8c2581a7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <46150863.2050400@redhat.com> <20070405172331.46ee0fec.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20070510114131.f1fb6c50.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:23:31 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > So, what is the formal procedure for requesting a package update on the > > > buildsys server like described above and getting an official and final > > > reply? > > > > > Get someone upstream (RHEL) to accept the package changes. buildsys is > > going away in days anyway after koji goes live. > > > > -Mike > > The package is not in RHEL and not in CentOS either. It is the Fedora > package built for CentOS. > > Luke Macken's updates system also uses python-kid, and would benefit > from the minor version upgrade, too. Why is it so damned difficult to get a single package updated although I even provided the prepared rpms? This is turning into a negative experience for me. -- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-infrastructure-list/2007-March/msg00164.html From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Thu May 10 10:36:45 2007 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 05:36:45 -0500 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <1178771400.4867.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <1178754042.11253.19.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <1178771400.4867.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1178793405.11271.4.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 00:30 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 18:40 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > Yet another possibility would be trademark agreements that effectively > > > limited Fedora users' freedoms. > > > > Such as the one with the Mozilla for Firefox/Thunderbird? That is an > > issue to take to the Board. > > Fedora's own trademark guidelines are similarly restrictive to the > Mozilla ones for FF + TB. Hypocrisy is fine in some cases, I'm just > pointing it out. Oh, yes I know. I wasn't picking on Mozilla. Just using it as an example for clarification. (And yes, the Fedora trademark issues are also something for the Board should someone wish to change them). josh From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu May 10 14:14:41 2007 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:14:41 -0500 Subject: python-kid on buildsys server In-Reply-To: <20070510114131.f1fb6c50.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20070315220812.8d6dc388.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070320140320.9e79c10e.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <460893C8.2090309@redhat.com> <20070327120220.4b6c6510.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070405114453.8c2581a7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <46150863.2050400@redhat.com> <20070405172331.46ee0fec.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070510114131.f1fb6c50.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <464328D1.1080707@redhat.com> Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:23:31 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > Why is it so damned difficult to get a single package updated although > I even provided the prepared rpms? This is turning into a negative > experience for me. > > Oh I don't know 1) Its not actually causing problems for people 2) It means we have to alter the OS with a non-standard RPM. -Mike From bugs.michael at gmx.net Thu May 10 14:29:28 2007 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:29:28 +0200 Subject: python-kid on buildsys server In-Reply-To: <464328D1.1080707@redhat.com> References: <20070315220812.8d6dc388.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070320140320.9e79c10e.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <460893C8.2090309@redhat.com> <20070327120220.4b6c6510.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070405114453.8c2581a7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <46150863.2050400@redhat.com> <20070405172331.46ee0fec.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070510114131.f1fb6c50.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <464328D1.1080707@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070510162928.a1e28961.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:14:41 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:23:31 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > > > > Why is it so damned difficult to get a single package updated although > > I even provided the prepared rpms? This is turning into a negative > > experience for me. > > > > > > Oh I don't know > 1) Its not actually causing problems for people Why do I need to repeat it again? It creates bad html pages for repoview, which don't pass the w3c validator. Could it be that you ignored my examples when I posted them weeks ago? > 2) It means we have to alter the OS with a non-standard RPM. The installed older version is non-standard, too. It comes from a private repository. The createrepo upgrade is non-standard, too. When I used a local copy of Yum 2.6.x to get something done, I was flamed. When I ask for an official update of an installed rpm, I need a lot of energy to run against closed doors. From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu May 10 14:40:50 2007 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:40:50 -0500 Subject: python-kid on buildsys server In-Reply-To: <20070510162928.a1e28961.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20070315220812.8d6dc388.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070320140320.9e79c10e.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <460893C8.2090309@redhat.com> <20070327120220.4b6c6510.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070405114453.8c2581a7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <46150863.2050400@redhat.com> <20070405172331.46ee0fec.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070510114131.f1fb6c50.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <464328D1.1080707@redhat.com> <20070510162928.a1e28961.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <46432EF2.8040300@redhat.com> Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:14:41 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > >>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:23:31 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: >>> >>> >>> Why is it so damned difficult to get a single package updated although >>> I even provided the prepared rpms? This is turning into a negative >>> experience for me. >>> >>> >>> >> Oh I don't know >> 1) Its not actually causing problems for people >> > > Why do I need to repeat it again? It creates bad html pages for > repoview, which don't pass the w3c validator. Could it be that > you ignored my examples when I posted them weeks ago? > > >> 2) It means we have to alter the OS with a non-standard RPM. >> > > The installed older version is non-standard, too. It comes from > a private repository. > > The createrepo upgrade is non-standard, too. > > When I used a local copy of Yum 2.6.x to get something done, I was flamed. > When I ask for an official update of an installed rpm, I need a lot > of energy to run against closed doors. > You weren't flamed, you were denied. There is a big difference. Dennis (Our buildsystem officer) and I discussed it and decided the update was not worth the risk (all updates carry risk). I'm sorry but your local copy of yum 2.6 is not supported by the Fedora Infrastructure team. -Mike From bugs.michael at gmx.net Thu May 10 15:06:52 2007 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:06:52 +0200 Subject: python-kid on buildsys server In-Reply-To: <46432EF2.8040300@redhat.com> References: <20070315220812.8d6dc388.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070320140320.9e79c10e.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <460893C8.2090309@redhat.com> <20070327120220.4b6c6510.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070405114453.8c2581a7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <46150863.2050400@redhat.com> <20070405172331.46ee0fec.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070510114131.f1fb6c50.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <464328D1.1080707@redhat.com> <20070510162928.a1e28961.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <46432EF2.8040300@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070510170652.b6f00c5a.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:40:50 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > When I used a local copy of Yum 2.6.x to get something done, I was flamed. > > When I ask for an official update of an installed rpm, I need a lot > > of energy to run against closed doors. > > > > You weren't flamed, you were denied. There is a big difference. Dennis > (Our buildsystem officer) and I discussed it and decided the update was > not worth the risk (all updates carry risk). What risk? Where can I read about that? Dennis has not replied to my public mail either. Currently, repoview is the only package that requires python-kid on that machine. Who decides on what packages from that mysterious private repo are "supported" on that machine or not? Seth? > I'm sorry but your local > copy of yum 2.6 is not supported by the Fedora Infrastructure team. That "team" has never before said anything about it. The API is needed as the backend for the Extras multilib resolver, Extras repoclosure, ... and some other tools. But maybe you misunderstand. Perhaps I should drop the ball at this point and declare the code unsupported, too. As I said before, this is turning into a negative experience for me. From dennis at ausil.us Thu May 10 17:26:43 2007 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 12:26:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: python-kid on buildsys server In-Reply-To: <20070510170652.b6f00c5a.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20070315220812.8d6dc388.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070320140320.9e79c10e.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <460893C8.2090309@redhat.com> <20070327120220.4b6c6510.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070405114453.8c2581a7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <46150863.2050400@redhat.com> <20070405172331.46ee0fec.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070510114131.f1fb6c50.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <464328D1.1080707@redhat.com> <20070510162928.a1e28961.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <46432EF2.8040300@redhat.com> <20070510170652.b6f00c5a.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <54138.12.163.52.126.1178818003.squirrel@webmail.ausil.us> > On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:40:50 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > >> > When I used a local copy of Yum 2.6.x to get something done, I was >> flamed. >> > When I ask for an official update of an installed rpm, I need a lot >> > of energy to run against closed doors. >> > >> >> You weren't flamed, you were denied. There is a big difference. Dennis >> (Our buildsystem officer) and I discussed it and decided the update was >> not worth the risk (all updates carry risk). > > What risk? Where can I read about that? Dennis has not replied to my > public mail either. Other than w3c validation failing nothing is broken. an end user goes to view the repoview pages they see the correct thing. > Currently, repoview is the only package that requires python-kid on that > machine. Who decides on what packages from that mysterious private repo > are "supported" on that machine or not? Seth? In the past certain things like that package were installed. We now have a policy that only officially released packages can be used on infrastructure. the correct place to get what you want is EPEL im more than happy to install anything you need that is in RHEL or EPEL. But will not install something from outside those two sources. >> I'm sorry but your local >> copy of yum 2.6 is not supported by the Fedora Infrastructure team. > > That "team" has never before said anything about it. The API is needed as > the backend for the Extras multilib resolver, Extras repoclosure, ... and > some other tools. But maybe you misunderstand. > > Perhaps I should drop the ball at this point and declare the code > unsupported, too. As I said before, this is turning into a negative > experience for me. -- Dennis Gilmore, RHCE From aoliva at redhat.com Thu May 10 21:07:29 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:07:29 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <1178754142.3570.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Tom Callaway's message of "Wed\, 09 May 2007 18\:42\:22 -0500") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <1178754142.3570.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On May 9, 2007, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 20:33 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Another possibility is that of restrictive patent licenses, and the >> recent creative patent agreements we recently learned about, such as >> that between Microsoft and Novell. > Restrictive patent licenses don't qualify for Fedora as is. Excellent. Where's that stated? >> Yet another possibility would be trademark agreements that effectively >> limited Fedora users' freedoms. > Trademark or patent agreements are a board issue, but I can't see the > board agreeing to those sorts of things. What sorts of things exactly? It depends on what you understand by "limiting users' freedoms." Requiring certain images to be removed, for example, doesn't. Howver, requiring them to be replaced to keep the software functional, and having lots and lots of them, would turn the replacement into an unsurmountable work, which would effectively limit the freedoms. What do you think the board would disagree with? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From aoliva at redhat.com Thu May 10 21:13:24 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:13:24 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <1178754042.11253.19.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> (Josh Boyer's message of "Wed\, 09 May 2007 18\:40\:42 -0500") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <1178754042.11253.19.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On May 9, 2007, Josh Boyer wrote: > And Fedora cannot do anything about the Microsoft/Novell deal. They are > exercising a loophole in the GPL. How is Fedora supposed to fight that? By stating that Fedora will respect its users' freedoms. As a consequente, it won't ever distribute software under such agreements. I.e., Fedora wouldn't enter such an agreement. Not that I doubt we wouldn't. The thing to keep in mind is that this public commitment is not just for ourselves, it's for the public out there, that doesn't trust ourselves as much as we know we can. >> Yet another possibility would be trademark agreements that effectively >> limited Fedora users' freedoms. > Such as the one with the Mozilla for Firefox/Thunderbird? Yeah, that's the sort of thing I was alluding to, even though I don't quite know whether the Mozilla trademarks actually limit users' freedoms pertaining to these programs. >> It would be far more comforting if Fedora committed itself to respect >> its users' freedoms in the general terms established by the FSD and >> the OSD, rather than to commit itself to not disrespect them in some >> particular ways. > We _do_ use the OSD/OSI definition. No > It's the very first license category on that page. Which brings us back to how the thread started. It's not about the license (which is what the page states). It's about the definition. It's about ensuring that Fedora will not be part of schemes to restrain the freedoms of users, in the ways that would render the software non-compliant with the FSD or the OSD. I.e., that Fedora won't impose such restrictions itself, and won't pass on software under such restrictions imposed by third parties. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From aoliva at redhat.com Thu May 10 21:18:13 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:18:13 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: (Alexandre Oliva's message of "Wed\, 09 May 2007 20\:33\:50 -0300") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 9, 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 9, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> Perhaps it would make sense to also add a note explaining that Fedora >>> is committed to not distributing [non-firmware] software in such a way >>> that the software wouldn't abide by these definitions, from the point >>> of view of the recipients. E.g. software licensed under a Free >>> Software license but without corresponding sources. If the reader >>> finds deviations s/he should report them. >> Doesn't >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-c23c2cd3782be842dc7ab40c35199c07cfbfe347 >> already cover all that? > At first, I almost agreed with it. Sorry that I forgot we already had > that bit. And today I realized that's not quite enough to ensure that the *user* receives the source code from us. All that states is that *we* get the source code. So we could in theory accept Free Software, including source code, under a liberal license, build it AFAICT in perfect accordance with our guidelines, and distribute only its binaries to our users. It's obvious to me that we're not going to do this. But is it obvious for an outsider, who looks at us suspiciously? That's the kind of public commitment that I'm looking for. Something that we can point suspicious outsiders to, to make it clear that we are in fact committed to doing The Right Thing. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From rdieter at math.unl.edu Thu May 10 21:53:09 2007 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:53:09 -0500 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <46439445.8030907@math.unl.edu> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > And today I realized that's not quite enough to ensure that the *user* > receives the source code from us. All that states is that *we* get > the source code. > > So we could in theory accept Free Software, including source code, > under a liberal license, build it AFAICT in perfect accordance with > our guidelines, and distribute only its binaries to our users. > huh? , it's right in the *definition* of opensource (see item 2): http://opensource.org/docs/osd Now, If it would make you feel better that we spell it out *explicitly*, then draft a proposal for review: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#head-bc786fd8400956418c30ac87c30733f0c008b146 -- Rex -- Rex From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu May 10 22:15:08 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:15:08 -0500 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <1178754142.3570.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1178835308.3904.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 18:07 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 9, 2007, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 20:33 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> Another possibility is that of restrictive patent licenses, and the > >> recent creative patent agreements we recently learned about, such as > >> that between Microsoft and Novell. > > > Restrictive patent licenses don't qualify for Fedora as is. > > Excellent. Where's that stated? It is implicit in the "only licenses approved by the FSF or OSI are OK for Fedora". Unless you think that the FSF or the OSI have approved any restrictive patent licenses... > >> Yet another possibility would be trademark agreements that effectively > >> limited Fedora users' freedoms. > > > Trademark or patent agreements are a board issue, but I can't see the > > board agreeing to those sorts of things. > > What sorts of things exactly? It depends on what you understand by > "limiting users' freedoms." Requiring certain images to be removed, > for example, doesn't. Howver, requiring them to be replaced to keep > the software functional, and having lots and lots of them, would turn > the replacement into an unsurmountable work, which would effectively > limit the freedoms. What do you think the board would disagree with? I don't think the Fedora Board would make any trademark or patent agreements that would limit user freedoms. I'm unwilling to hypothesize on anything more specific without an actual... well... specific. :) ~spot From aoliva at redhat.com Thu May 10 23:26:46 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 20:26:46 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <1178835308.3904.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Tom Callaway's message of "Thu\, 10 May 2007 17\:15\:08 -0500") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <1178754142.3570.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178835308.3904.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On May 10, 2007, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 18:07 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On May 9, 2007, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 20:33 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> Another possibility is that of restrictive patent licenses, and the >> >> recent creative patent agreements we recently learned about, such as >> >> that between Microsoft and Novell. >> > Restrictive patent licenses don't qualify for Fedora as is. >> Excellent. Where's that stated? > It is implicit in the "only licenses approved by the FSF or OSI are OK > for Fedora". I'm afraid it isn't. AFAIK GPLv3 will be the first Free Software license to stop the kind of practice I'm alluding to. > Unless you think that the FSF or the OSI have approved any restrictive > patent licenses... No, but they have approved licenses that don't stop involved parties from colluding to deny users their freedoms through patent agreements and restrictive patent licenses, which effectively renders the software non-Free for its recipients. >> >> Yet another possibility would be trademark agreements that effectively >> >> limited Fedora users' freedoms. >> > Trademark or patent agreements are a board issue, but I can't see the >> > board agreeing to those sorts of things. FWIW, I misunderstood what you wrote. I seemed to me that you were saying the board wouldn't agree to making a public commitment not to accept such agreements, rather than what I now think you meant, that the board wouldn't accept such agreements. Right? >> What sorts of things exactly? It depends on what you understand by >> "limiting users' freedoms." Requiring certain images to be removed, >> for example, doesn't. Howver, requiring them to be replaced to keep >> the software functional, and having lots and lots of them, would turn >> the replacement into an unsurmountable work, which would effectively >> limit the freedoms. What do you think the board would disagree with? > I don't think the Fedora Board would make any trademark or patent > agreements that would limit user freedoms. Then I guess the board might be willing to make clear its unwillingness to accept such agreements, no? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu May 10 23:34:39 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:34:39 -0500 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <1178754142.3570.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178835308.3904.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1178840079.3732.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 20:26 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > It is implicit in the "only licenses approved by the FSF or OSI are OK > > for Fedora". > > I'm afraid it isn't. AFAIK GPLv3 will be the first Free Software > license to stop the kind of practice I'm alluding to. Well, I doubt we will move to a "only GPLv3" licensing policy anytime in the near future. > FWIW, I misunderstood what you wrote. I seemed to me that you were > saying the board wouldn't agree to making a public commitment not to > accept such agreements, rather than what I now think you meant, that > the board wouldn't accept such agreements. Right? Yes, that's right. > >> What sorts of things exactly? It depends on what you understand by > >> "limiting users' freedoms." Requiring certain images to be removed, > >> for example, doesn't. Howver, requiring them to be replaced to keep > >> the software functional, and having lots and lots of them, would turn > >> the replacement into an unsurmountable work, which would effectively > >> limit the freedoms. What do you think the board would disagree with? > > > I don't think the Fedora Board would make any trademark or patent > > agreements that would limit user freedoms. > > Then I guess the board might be willing to make clear its > unwillingness to accept such agreements, no? You'd have to ask them. :) ~spot From aoliva at redhat.com Fri May 11 00:05:34 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:05:34 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <46439445.8030907@math.unl.edu> (Rex Dieter's message of "Thu\, 10 May 2007 16\:53\:09 -0500") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46439445.8030907@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: On May 10, 2007, Rex Dieter wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> >> And today I realized that's not quite enough to ensure that the *user* >> receives the source code from us. All that states is that *we* get >> the source code. >> >> So we could in theory accept Free Software, including source code, >> under a liberal license, build it AFAICT in perfect accordance with >> our guidelines, and distribute only its binaries to our users. > huh? , it's right in the *definition* of opensource (see item 2): > http://opensource.org/docs/osd Yeah, and it's in the definition of Free Software. And if *we* can enjoy the freedoms, it's Free Software for us. And if software complies with all the criteria set forth in the OSD, then it's OSS for us. But where do we state that it's going to remain so for our users? Where do we state that we're not going to deny them the freedoms, or offer them software that was OSS for us but that isn't for them, or that we're not going to collute with third parties to make it seem like we're respecting our users' freedoms, while we procure the restraining of freedoms to these third parties? I.e., where do we state that, when we distribute software, it's FS (and OSS) for both ourselves *and* those who receive it from us. My point, all the way from the beginning of this thread, is that its being FS (and OSS) for ourselves is not enough. > Now, If it would make you feel better that we spell it out > *explicitly*, then draft a proposal for review: Here's an early draft of what I have in mind. I understand it's not compatible with current practice, but I'm having hard enough a time just phrasing the kind of commitment I think we ought to pursue. Any comments? Fedora's (proposed) Public Promise The Fedora Project is publicly committed to respecting its users' four freedoms. Fedora promises to only distribute software under Free Software royalty-free licenses, always offering source code for the software itself and any other software needed to build it and run it. While Fedora unfortunately cannot guarantee that all the software it distributes is free from patent royalties or other legal weapons incompatible with the four freedoms, avoiding them is a goal that Fedora strives for. Fedora promises to never distribute software under patent licenses or other agreements that would not permit downstream recipients to enjoy the four freedoms. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Fri May 11 00:57:20 2007 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 19:57:20 -0500 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46439445.8030907@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1178845041.13113.20.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 21:05 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 10, 2007, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> > >> > >> And today I realized that's not quite enough to ensure that the *user* > >> receives the source code from us. All that states is that *we* get > >> the source code. > >> > >> So we could in theory accept Free Software, including source code, > >> under a liberal license, build it AFAICT in perfect accordance with > >> our guidelines, and distribute only its binaries to our users. > > > huh? , it's right in the *definition* of opensource (see item 2): > > http://opensource.org/docs/osd > > Yeah, and it's in the definition of Free Software. And if *we* can > enjoy the freedoms, it's Free Software for us. And if software > complies with all the criteria set forth in the OSD, then it's OSS for > us. > > But where do we state that it's going to remain so for our users? _Fedora_ doesn't have to. _Fedora_ cannot change the licenses of the packages we ship. Those licenses dictate that we cannot remove the freedoms granted to the users. Add to that the fact that we don't not accept packages with licenses that do not grant those very freedoms, as already defined in the packaging guidelines. It is _inherent_ in the licensing we choose for acceptance into Fedora. > Here's an early draft of what I have in mind. I understand it's not > compatible with current practice, but I'm having hard enough a time > just phrasing the kind of commitment I think we ought to pursue. > > Any comments? > > > Fedora's (proposed) Public Promise > > The Fedora Project is publicly committed to respecting its users' four > freedoms. What four freedoms would those be? You don't list them below. > Fedora promises to only distribute software under Free > Software royalty-free licenses, always offering source code for the > software itself and any other software needed to build it and run it. > > While Fedora unfortunately cannot guarantee that all the software it > distributes is free from patent royalties or other legal weapons > incompatible with the four freedoms, avoiding them is a goal that > Fedora strives for. Fedora promises to never distribute software > under patent licenses or other agreements that would not permit > downstream recipients to enjoy the four freedoms. This is something that would need approval from the Board. As Tom already said, I doubt the Board would blindly make such a statement. josh From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Fri May 11 01:04:06 2007 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 20:04:06 -0500 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <1178845041.13113.20.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46439445.8030907@math.unl.edu> <1178845041.13113.20.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1178845446.13113.26.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 19:57 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 21:05 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On May 10, 2007, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > > > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> And today I realized that's not quite enough to ensure that the *user* > > >> receives the source code from us. All that states is that *we* get > > >> the source code. > > >> > > >> So we could in theory accept Free Software, including source code, > > >> under a liberal license, build it AFAICT in perfect accordance with > > >> our guidelines, and distribute only its binaries to our users. > > > > > huh? , it's right in the *definition* of opensource (see item 2): > > > http://opensource.org/docs/osd > > > > Yeah, and it's in the definition of Free Software. And if *we* can > > enjoy the freedoms, it's Free Software for us. And if software > > complies with all the criteria set forth in the OSD, then it's OSS for > > us. > > > > But where do we state that it's going to remain so for our users? > > _Fedora_ doesn't have to. _Fedora_ cannot change the licenses of the > packages we ship. Those licenses dictate that we cannot remove the > freedoms granted to the users. Add to that the fact that we don't not do not ^^^^^^^^^ /me is so tired. josh From aoliva at redhat.com Fri May 11 07:19:36 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 04:19:36 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <1178840079.3732.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Tom Callaway's message of "Thu\, 10 May 2007 18\:34\:39 -0500") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <1178754142.3570.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178835308.3904.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178840079.3732.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On May 10, 2007, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 20:26 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> > It is implicit in the "only licenses approved by the FSF or OSI are OK >> > for Fedora". >> >> I'm afraid it isn't. AFAIK GPLv3 will be the first Free Software >> license to stop the kind of practice I'm alluding to. > Well, I doubt we will move to a "only GPLv3" licensing policy anytime in > the near future. Do you realize that the decision to respect user's freedoms doesn't imply selecting one particular license that demands you to do that? Consider a liberal license such as the MIT license. It doesn't require you to pass on source code. But you can do it, even if you could also choose not to do so. And if you commit to do it, people will know you'll do it, even if you didn't have to. This is precisely what I've been trying to talk about since I started this thread. I don't understand why this has been so hard to communicate :-( It's not about what the license demands, or lets us do. It's about what we promise our users we're going to deliver them, even if the license doesn't demand it from us. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From aoliva at redhat.com Fri May 11 07:26:09 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 04:26:09 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <1178845041.13113.20.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> (Josh Boyer's message of "Thu\, 10 May 2007 19\:57\:20 -0500") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46439445.8030907@math.unl.edu> <1178845041.13113.20.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On May 10, 2007, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 21:05 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Yeah, and it's in the definition of Free Software. And if *we* can >> enjoy the freedoms, it's Free Software for us. And if software >> complies with all the criteria set forth in the OSD, then it's OSS for >> us. >> >> But where do we state that it's going to remain so for our users? > _Fedora_ doesn't have to. _Fedora_ cannot change the licenses of the > packages we ship. But we don't have to change the license to do that. > Those licenses dictate that we cannot remove the > freedoms granted to the users. No, they don't. Only a few of htem do. Remember that not all Free Software licenses require corresponding source code to be offered along with the binaries. But then, when binaries are distributed without source code, the software is no longer free for the recipient, even if it's still under the same Free Software license. Capisce? > It is _inherent_ in the licensing we choose for acceptance into Fedora. No, it's not, and this is *exactly* the point I'm trying to make. I don't see anything in Fedora policies today that would stop us from telling a user: here, take this MIT-licensed binary; no, we're not going to give you the sources for our build; no, we're not even going to tell you whether we modified it. It is Free Software for us, but not for our users. The most important thing is that it's Free Software for our users. >> The Fedora Project is publicly committed to respecting its users' four >> freedoms. > What four freedoms would those be? You don't list them below. Those in the Free Software definition, linked from our front page, of course. If this was html, wiki or some other representation that enabled marking up of links, I'd have added a link to the FSD. > This is something that would need approval from the Board. Of course. > As Tom already said, I doubt the Board would blindly make such a > statement. He actually said something else ;-) I'm happy I was not the only one who misunderstood it. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From bugs.michael at gmx.net Fri May 11 11:26:34 2007 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 13:26:34 +0200 Subject: python-kid on buildsys server In-Reply-To: <54138.12.163.52.126.1178818003.squirrel@webmail.ausil.us> References: <20070315220812.8d6dc388.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070320140320.9e79c10e.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <460893C8.2090309@redhat.com> <20070327120220.4b6c6510.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070405114453.8c2581a7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <46150863.2050400@redhat.com> <20070405172331.46ee0fec.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070510114131.f1fb6c50.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <464328D1.1080707@redhat.com> <20070510162928.a1e28961.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <46432EF2.8040300@redhat.com> <20070510170652.b6f00c5a.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <54138.12.163.52.126.1178818003.squirrel@webmail.ausil.us> Message-ID: <20070511132634.41751d24.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:26:43 -0500 (CDT), Dennis Gilmore wrote: > Other than w3c validation failing nothing is broken. an end user goes to > view the repoview pages they see the correct thing. That's far from a good reason to not fix it nevertheless. Afterall, part of the development includes making sure the page templates generate valid xhtml in the target environment. > > Currently, repoview is the only package that requires python-kid on that > > machine. Who decides on what packages from that mysterious private repo > > are "supported" on that machine or not? Seth? > > In the past certain things like that package were installed. We now have > a policy that only officially released packages can be used on > infrastructure. the correct place to get what you want is EPEL im more > than happy to install anything you need that is in RHEL or EPEL. But will > not install something from outside those two sources. With publishing packages in EPEL comes the requirement to maintain them in EPEL many years with less or no opportunity to upgrade to a new API as time passes by. I'm not willing to do that. Other requirements, like createrepo-0.4.8 and its dependencies, have been installed in violation of that "policy". From bugs.michael at gmx.net Fri May 11 11:27:22 2007 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 13:27:22 +0200 Subject: python-kid on buildsys server In-Reply-To: <464337E0.8020600@redhat.com> References: <20070315220812.8d6dc388.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070320140320.9e79c10e.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <460893C8.2090309@redhat.com> <20070327120220.4b6c6510.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070405114453.8c2581a7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <46150863.2050400@redhat.com> <20070405172331.46ee0fec.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20070510114131.f1fb6c50.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <464328D1.1080707@redhat.com> <20070510162928.a1e28961.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <46432EF2.8040300@redhat.com> <20070510170652.b6f00c5a.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <464337E0.8020600@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070511132722.914a7e3d.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:18:56 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > machine. Who decides on what packages from that mysterious private repo > > are "supported" on that machine or not? Seth? > > > Anyone with admin access to that box. If someone wants to install the > RPM on that box and make sure it works they are welcome to do so. This is contrary to what Dennis claims, and I won't upgrade system rpms without explicit permission, regardless of whether the packages are orphans or not. > >> I'm sorry but your local > >> copy of yum 2.6 is not supported by the Fedora Infrastructure team. > >> > > > > That "team" has never before said anything about it. The API is needed as > > the backend for the Extras multilib resolver, Extras repoclosure, ... and > > some other tools. But maybe you misunderstand. > > > > Perhaps I should drop the ball at this point and declare the code > > unsupported, too. As I said before, this is turning into a negative > > experience for me. > > > Ok clearly there's been some miscommunication because I have no idea > what you're talking about. That's the fundamental problem. It's the missing interest that results in artificial policies and spontaneous decisions like this, which are beyond my comprehension. Nobody cares what code is uploaded to and run on that machine to get something done. But when I ask on a otherwise quite silent public mailing-list about an official package update, it takes 12 days to get a first one-line reply, which demonstrates that the actual interest is low. After weeks, the hypocrisy increases and the reason for denial is altered. This is a hindrance and a disappointment. You have no interest, but you don't want to let loose either. As such, I'm losing interesting as I don't feel good about this. From kanarip at kanarip.com Fri May 11 21:19:26 2007 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 23:19:26 +0200 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <200705091103.09961.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <1178633676.5959.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> <464204F5.2070400@kanarip.com> <200705091103.09961.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4644DDDE.7050802@kanarip.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 09 May 2007 10:29:25 Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> This kind of document may not be needed if Revisor gets through it's >> review for submission to the Fedora repository. > > Does revisor actually allow for a manfest of '*'? Not every package is > represented through comps to the graphical package selection tools. Just > curious. > > Actually, no it doesn't. In fact, we've not yet been able to parse kickstarts --optional and --nodefault options either. The latter is on our wishlist already, and we've got another enhancement request for a 'Select All' button. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRN3dKN6f2pNCvwgRAii9AKCHG8mWjl6HwLhdYzDCDCrlO0Be8ACfQqY6 oSNoCNtm5TZiu05GYqqsjGQ= =/bdJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kanarip at kanarip.com Fri May 11 21:20:52 2007 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 23:20:52 +0200 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4644DE34.3050103@kanarip.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 7, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Mirror space: I think we can do a torrent only release and let any >> mirrors carry it if they want to. > > jigdo > jigdo then again has problems with locating packages that have been obsoleted from a repository. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRN4zKN6f2pNCvwgRAlRcAJ9sfpEIStbo2l+IogjlzbY5KAjX4QCfc5da Ai2a/KDcfeaJIgbDZXFNstc= =ysZT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From aoliva at redhat.com Sat May 12 00:35:46 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 21:35:46 -0300 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <200705091746.23702.jkeating@redhat.com> (Jesse Keating's message of "Wed\, 9 May 2007 17\:46\:20 -0700") References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <464269C2.6010105@fedoraproject.org> <200705091746.23702.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On May 9, 2007, Jesse Keating wrote: > It needs to be used from test1 on to work out any particular bugs > with creating the files as part of the compose process, and make > sure that there isn't anything that is going to cause problems. FWIW, I've been using it since FC5 or so, including all test releases. Of course not as part of the compose process, but it's easy enough to do it afterwards, *and* the files it creates can be published separately. So, no biggie. We can even do it retroactively for older releases whenever we feel comfortable about it. > It took a while and many tests with bittorrent before we started to > feel comfortable. It's a completely different kind of technology, so the additional concern is deserved. jigdo is more like a tar-by-reference ;-) so, in the worst case, if it fails to build the isos, you end up with all the files downloaded and properly laid out into an installable tree just next to the iso ;-) > Turning this on, for the final release, without having tested it at all > before, is not a winning prospect. OTOH it's a no-loss prospect too. But I appreciate your concern given how close we are to the release. It's a bit frustrating, however, that this has been suggested numerous times even before FC6 went out, and the scripts were offered back then :-( -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From aoliva at redhat.com Sat May 12 00:37:56 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 21:37:56 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Thu\, 10 May 2007 05\:46\:21 +0530") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 9, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Commitment is the first thing established in the guidelines Where? > Does FSD apply to GNU FDL including it's invariant sections? Probably not, since the FSD is about software, and documentation is not software, even though it's an important element for every piece of software. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat May 12 00:55:20 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 06:25:20 +0530 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 9, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Commitment is the first thing established in the guidelines > > Where? > In the licensing section where it says we are only going to include software under the FSF free software definition or OSI open source definition. For all these we are including SRPMS so source is always going to available to end users with the exception of firmware. Your "Public Promise" proposal that makes it part of policy makes no mention of firmware and hence would be inconsistent with the rest of the guidelines. It does not stop things like including Fleundo mp3 plugin (which is what I think you have in mind) because we are not a patent licensee in that case. It is under a Free software license which satisfies the definition. > Probably not, since the FSD is about software, and documentation is > not software, even though it's an important element for every piece of > software. Non-free documentation is ok to you? Rahul From kanarip at kanarip.com Sat May 12 02:27:42 2007 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 04:27:42 +0200 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <464269C2.6010105@fedoraproject.org> <200705091746.23702.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4645261E.6060202@kanarip.com> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 9, 2007, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> It needs to be used from test1 on to work out any particular bugs >> with creating the files as part of the compose process, and make >> sure that there isn't anything that is going to cause problems. > > FWIW, I've been using it since FC5 or so, including all test > releases. Of course not as part of the compose process, but it's easy > enough to do it afterwards, *and* the files it creates can be > published separately. So, no biggie. We can even do it retroactively > for older releases whenever we feel comfortable about it. > >> It took a while and many tests with bittorrent before we started to >> feel comfortable. > > It's a completely different kind of technology, so the additional > concern is deserved. > > jigdo is more like a tar-by-reference ;-) so, in the worst case, if > it fails to build the isos, you end up with all the files downloaded > and properly laid out into an installable tree just next to the iso ;-) > >> Turning this on, for the final release, without having tested it at all >> before, is not a winning prospect. > > OTOH it's a no-loss prospect too. But I appreciate your concern given > how close we are to the release. It's a bit frustrating, however, > that this has been suggested numerous times even before FC6 went out, > and the scripts were offered back then :-( > Fedora Unity has had problems with jigdo like the kind I referenced earlier, packages being obsoleted from a repository (and thus the mirrors). Then there's the redirect perl script you want to apply, so that you balance across mirrors, and GeoIP can give you the (most probably) fastest mirror... Then there's the possible mirror corruption, which makes jigdo fail if you choose to use a redirect script based on GeoIP and keep returning the same mirror to a user that lives in the middle of nowhere. I'm wondering what the scripts for FC6 where about, they may be a good start. Can you send them? BTW, /me thinks this discussion is better of on -devel. -kanarip From aoliva at redhat.com Sat May 12 07:01:13 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 04:01:13 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Sat\, 12 May 2007 06\:25\:20 +0530") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 11, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On May 9, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> >>> Commitment is the first thing established in the guidelines >> >> Where? >> > In the licensing section where it says we are only going to include > software under the FSF free software definition or OSI open source > definition. No, it doesn't say that, and this is what I've been trying to explain since I started this thread. What is says is that we're going to require approved licenses. But being under an approved license doesn't imply being FS or OSS for our users. We've taken care of ensuring we won't include software under such licenses without sources, but we haven't taken care of promising to our users that we'd offer them the sources. And then, one more time, omitting sources is just one of the various possible ways of disrespecting users' freedoms. Entering patent or trademark agreements that put us at an advantage position over our users could amount to that as well. It boils down to the point that everything I've seen about our guidelines states what we require from upstream, but not what we promise downstream. We don't commit to not being the weak link in the chain. And I think we should. > For all these we are including SRPMS so source is always going to > available to end users with the exception of firmware. See, we agree we ought to do that. Then why wouldn't we make this promise out in the clear to our users? > Your "Public Promise" proposal that makes it part of policy makes no > mention of firmware and hence would be inconsistent with the rest of > the guidelines. Right. I even mentioned it in the paragraph above the proposal. > It does not stop things like including Fleundo mp3 plugin (which is > what I think you have in mind) No, I don't have any such specifics in mind. My goal is a broad promise to respect our users' freedoms. Do you have any opposition to respecting our users' freedoms? Does anyone? I really thought we had consensus that this is what we wanted, and that our policies not making this clear was just an oversight. I really don't understand the kind of opposition I'm getting in this issue. I know I've brought up other controversial ones, but this is not it. This is just meant to codify what I thought we had consensus on. Now, the decision on whether to include software that practices patents or not is almost entirely orthogonal to that of respecting users' freedoms. Patents are territorial. If we could legally include that software such that users would decide what they can legally use and what they can't, we wouldn't be disrespecting anyone's freedom. The problem is that the legal system doesn't quite work that way. So we instead have to refrain from distributing software that is subject to US patents because Fedora is based in the US. Well, too bad. But it has nothing to do with respecting freedoms. It WOULD become related with freedoms the moment we entered an agreement that would restrain the freedoms of our downstream users. Then we'd be joining the dark side and colluding to restrain freedoms of users, even those who didn't need a patent license in the first place. I doubt any of us would like Fedora to do any such thing, and I hoped everyone would feel comfortable if Fedora promised not to join the dark side. Does anyone disagree with my assessment? Does anyone have a problem with making such a promise? >> Probably not, since the FSD is about software, and documentation is >> not software, even though it's an important element for every piece of >> software. > Non-free documentation is ok to you? No, not really. But this is just a distraction. The point I'm discussing is software freedom. The promise I mentioned is about software alone. And there are reasons for that. We have our trademarked images that we don't want to release under a Free Software license, particularly the GPL, because it would likely obviate the trademark, or at least make it unenforceable. Since that's not software, this constraint may be acceptable. Non-Free documentation is much worse than non-Free trademarked logos, so such constraints are less acceptable. But for software, I wouldn't like Fedora to make any such concessions whatsoever, and strive to be 100% Free. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From aoliva at redhat.com Sat May 12 07:06:04 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 04:06:04 -0300 Subject: Everything spin? In-Reply-To: <4645261E.6060202@kanarip.com> (Jeroen van Meeuwen's message of "Sat\, 12 May 2007 04\:27\:42 +0200") References: <463FA2F0.4000405@fedoraproject.org> <464269C2.6010105@fedoraproject.org> <200705091746.23702.jkeating@redhat.com> <4645261E.6060202@kanarip.com> Message-ID: On May 11, 2007, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Fedora Unity has had problems with jigdo like the kind I referenced > earlier, Sorry, I missed that. Pointer? > packages being obsoleted from a repository (and thus the > mirrors). We don't ever touch a release tree after it goes out, do we? > Then there's the redirect perl script you want to apply, so > that you balance across mirrors, and GeoIP can give you the (most > probably) fastest mirror... I'd thought of leaving the choice of server entirely up to the user. > Then there's the possible mirror corruption, > which makes jigdo fail Yuck. What kind of failure mode is that? Retry forever, or detect inconsistency and abort? > I'm wondering what the scripts for FC6 where about, they may be a good > start. Can you send them? The scripts I posted assume one got the entire os/ or source/ tree over rsync or some such. I haven't ever really used jigdo in a download-the-pieces scenario; I hadn't really thought about it very much, I just knew jigdo could do it, and had a vague idea of how it would lay things out during the download. > BTW, /me thinks this discussion is better of on -devel. Indeed. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat May 12 07:19:18 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 12:49:18 +0530 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > I really don't understand the kind of opposition I'm getting in this > issue. I know I've brought up other controversial ones, but this is > not it. This is just meant to codify what I thought we had consensus > on. Nobody is opposing what you are saying but what you are saying is getting lost in all the rhetoric questions. You got to stop doing that if you want to get your message across since trying to read your actual point in between all these is getting tiresome. Do you have access to the wiki? If not read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WikiEditing and get wiki access. That would also help if you want to contribute towards setting up jidgo for the infrastructure team. Then write up a draft policy following instructions at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#head-bc786fd8400956418c30ac87c30733f0c008b146 The next board meeting when folks are back from the Red Hat summit we will discuss things and do the changes necessary. Good that you don't want non-free documentation because GNU FDL with invariant sections is IMO clearly non-free and I would like to clarify the guidelines to not include such documents too. Rahul From aoliva at redhat.com Sat May 12 08:48:45 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 05:48:45 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Sat\, 12 May 2007 12\:49\:18 +0530") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 12, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> I really don't understand the kind of opposition I'm getting in this >> issue. I know I've brought up other controversial ones, but this is >> not it. This is just meant to codify what I thought we had consensus >> on. > Nobody is opposing what you are saying but what you are saying is > getting lost in all the rhetoric questions. Oh, thank you. Can you please point at any rhetoric question in the message that started this thread? Or any rhetoric question I wrote in the entire thread? > You got to stop doing that if you want to get your message across > since trying to read your actual point in between all these is > getting tiresome. My actual point has been the same all the way from the beginning. Is Fedora committed to respecting its users' freedoms? We started down this road many years ago. But every time we get back to this topic, somehow there's some need to discuss something with the FSF, some need to clarify some point about what it would take to list Fedora on some web page, why some other distro is or is not listed on some web page that is completely out of my control. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THESE THINGS. What I care about is whether Fedora is willing to commit to respecting users' freedoms. In this regard, I don't care about what you think the FSF thinks. I am not the FSF. I don't even speak for FSFLA. I'm a user asking for clarifications on whether Fedora is willing to respect my freedoms. And the respect I get back is (paraphrased) "You're not helping, shut up", "Take your rhetorics elsewhere", "I didn't read what you wrote and I can prove it", "I will answer your questions if you force the FSF to change their web pages.", "I don't understand what you're talking about so I'll assume it's something I can easily disagree with." Do you have any idea of how disrespectful this is towards myself and the organization I work for? I wish you wouldn't do this any more, if you would like to remain in the receiving end of my respect. Because, you know, respect is supposed to be mutual. > Then write up a draft policy following instructions at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#head-bc786fd8400956418c30ac87c30733f0c008b146 Remember that message where I stated that I realized my proposal did not fully match current practice (non-Free firmware)? It was in reply to this. But I asked for feedback before going ahead. Is it so urgent to drive me elsewhere, or did you just miss the bit about asking for comments too? > The next board meeting when folks are back from the Red Hat summit we > will discuss things and do the changes necessary. I thought we were already discussing things. And clearly the point hasn't come across yet, and drafting the policy without having the need for it understood will do no good. So why rush me to do it? > Good that you don't want non-free documentation because GNU FDL with > invariant sections is IMO clearly non-free and I would like to clarify > the guidelines to not include such documents too. I'm not sure what goal you're trying to achieve with this, but please don't assume I support this move. And then, I shall point out that any document containing a copyleft license contains an invariant section. So are you going to ban documentation licensed under the GPL because you aren't allowed to modify the letter of the GPL in it? Doh! -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From jkeating at redhat.com Sat May 12 10:44:44 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 03:44:44 -0700 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200705120344.44421.jkeating@redhat.com> On Saturday 12 May 2007 01:48:45 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > ? Is Fedora committed to respecting its users' freedoms? Yes we are. A vague answer to a vague question. /me awaits a draft with actual meaning and content to discuss. -- 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 Sat May 12 12:17:01 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 17:47:01 +0530 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4645B03D.9010507@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 12, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > My actual point has been the same all the way from the beginning. > > Is Fedora committed to respecting its users' freedoms? You just did it again. Just drop asking these abstract questions and try be specific. The answers depend on your definition of freedom is on how it applies to varies aspects of the distribution and understand that FSF definitions of four freedoms are not absolute. Everybody including FSF has compromised on it taking into account several practical aspects. Are we committed to respecting freedom, choice, integrity, transparency etc etc? Yes we are. Are we agreeing to the exact definitions of any of these from you or FSF or FSFLA? I don't know. All we need to do is drive it down to specific details. I have spend a LOT of time finding these details. If you don't understand this point, let me give you another famous/notorious example from Fedora land. When we dropped the "everything" installation option in Fedora, some users were screaming that we were against "choice". So are we against choice? Definitely not. Are we going to provide all known options and combinations possible in Anaconda. Nope. It all depends on the details. The is ALWAYS a trade off. >> Then write up a draft policy following instructions at >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#head-bc786fd8400956418c30ac87c30733f0c008b146 > > Remember that message where I stated that I realized my proposal did > not fully match current practice (non-Free firmware)? It was in reply > to this. But I asked for feedback before going ahead. Is it so > urgent to drive me elsewhere, or did you just miss the bit about > asking for comments too? The way you ask for comments in guidelines is the process I have just outlined here. It provides a clear way for people wanting to make a decision to look at the details without having to read through this entire thread. I am just trying to help you achieve what you wanted. > I thought we were already discussing things. And clearly the point > hasn't come across yet, and drafting the policy without having the > need for it understood will do no good. So why rush me to do it? There is no rush to do it. I am again just informing you of the process that we follow. It is entirely your choice to follow it or not. > And then, I shall point out that any document containing a copyleft > license contains an invariant section. So are you going to ban > documentation licensed under the GPL because you aren't allowed to > modify the letter of the GPL in it? Doh! GPL is a license. It can be modified. The modifications just can't be called under the same name. That's entirely different question from whether content under a license is modifiable or not. By your abstract definitions of freedom, even GPL as license text shouldn't be allowed in Fedora. Hence the need for details. This is a very complex problem. If you choose to recognize that it is a complex problem and the answers are far from simple then you wouldn't be asking questions like whether we support freedom or not. It is pointless, abstract and serves no purpose. Rahul From smooge at gmail.com Sun May 13 14:55:51 2007 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 08:55:51 -0600 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <1178754142.3570.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178835308.3904.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178840079.3732.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <80d7e4090705130755j46393628h9b274acdcb73f534@mail.gmail.com> On 5/11/07, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > This is precisely what I've been trying to talk about since I started > this thread. I don't understand why this has been so hard to > communicate :-( > You are asking questions and using sentences that are very abstract. You have particular pictures in your head towards what those 'abstract' concepts are but other people either do not or have different pictures. The words 'freedom', 'rights', 'people', etc are all very overloaded terms in English and especially American English. Each of the terms have multiple meanings because they are all considered 'good' things and people want to associate what they believe in with 'good' things. This means that the terms lose all conceptual meaning because ESR Freedom is not the same as RMS Freedom which is not the same as Theo d'Raadts Freedom which is not ... the same with the word 'Rights'. All of this means that we end up getting angry with each other or just devalueing the words even further that no one really cares anymore. First off remember that humans are basically savage little monkeys with a large nervous center on the top of their brains. That brain is configured to be highly visual and wants to put 'pictures' towards words. The brain is also very social and tries to group things into 'friend'/'enemy' and is easily tricked into thinking something is part of its clan or not by word and image association. The first image that comes to my mind of 'Freedom' is Captain America... which I am betting isnt the image that comes to a non-USA'er, or someone who doesnt read/like comics. So you sentence 'Is Fedora committed to respecting its users' freedoms?' brings to mind Captain America going off to stop some evil Nazi ... Hope this helps. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" From wtogami at redhat.com Mon May 14 02:24:57 2007 From: wtogami at redhat.com (Warren Togami) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:24:57 -0400 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <1178750694.3570.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1178750694.3570.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4647C879.7080703@redhat.com> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 19:41 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> Perhaps it would make sense to also add a note explaining that Fedora >> is committed to not distributing [non-firmware] software in such a way >> that the software wouldn't abide by these definitions, from the point >> of view of the recipients. E.g. software licensed under a Free >> Software license but without corresponding sources. If the reader >> finds deviations s/he should report them. > > Or perhaps, more simply, that all software [non-firmware] in Fedora must > include source code. > ... and be reproducible from that source code by anyone. Warren Togami wtogami at redhat.com From aoliva at redhat.com Mon May 14 06:03:47 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 03:03:47 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <4645B03D.9010507@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Sat\, 12 May 2007 17\:47\:01 +0530") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> <4645B03D.9010507@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 12, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On May 12, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> >> My actual point has been the same all the way from the beginning. >> >> Is Fedora committed to respecting its users' freedoms? > You just did it again. Just drop asking these abstract questions > and try be specific. And then, when I go down to the details, it's regarded as rhetorics, or ignored. How is any of these attitudes helpful? But you're right, my question was inappropriate. It was missing "with regards to all the software it distributes", and a reference to the FSD for the meaning of the term "freedoms". > The answers depend on your definition of freedom FSD, I thought that was clear. I'm working on a document that will hopefully make things clearer. >>> Then write up a draft policy following instructions at >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#head-bc786fd8400956418c30ac87c30733f0c008b146 >> >> Remember that message where I stated that I realized my proposal did >> not fully match current practice (non-Free firmware)? It was in reply >> to this. But I asked for feedback before going ahead. Is it so >> urgent to drive me elsewhere, or did you just miss the bit about >> asking for comments too? > The way you ask for comments in guidelines is the process I have just > outlined here. Except that presenting a draft if people don't even understand why any change is needed will just get the draft discarded as pointless, so it would be wasting my time and yours. Unless I can understand what it is that you're missing or misunderstanding from what I'm saying, and you can understand what I'm missing or misunderstanding in what you're saying, we're going to keep on failing to communicate, and we'll get nowhere. Once we clear that up, it can be included in the draft document, even if only in a rationale portion thereof, and then it's going to be useful. Or is this process of clarifying, understanding and discussing part of the post-drafting process? This is not clear from the documented process, which makes me very wary of entering it right away. > GPL is a license. It can be modified. Except that it's a copyrighted document and its license does not permit modification. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. > That's entirely different question from > whether content under a license is modifiable or not. The GPL itself cannot be modified. Most licenses are like that. Now, what? Drop it all on the floor because every package contains a fragment that cannot be modified or removed? > By your abstract definitions of freedom, even GPL as license text > shouldn't be allowed in Fedora. Except that the GPL is not software. My abstract definition of freedom is applied to software, because that's where the freedoms are essential. > Hence the need for details. This is a very complex problem. I realize that. I'm willing to provide the details. But saying you're going to ask someone else what I mean, perhaps assuming I'm a proxy for someone else, is not exactly respectful. If you want to understand what I mean, how about asking me, instead of disqualifying my attempts at clarifying what I mean as mere rhetorics? > If you choose to recognize that it is a complex problem and the > answers are far from simple then you wouldn't be asking questions > like whether we support freedom or not. I thought we'd been working long enough on this for at least you to understand what I mean when I write "users' freedoms". This is quite disappointing, because it feels like we've gone through this for a number of times already :-( It feels like the very act of trying to clarify what I mean > is pointless, abstract and serves no purpose. :-( -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From aoliva at redhat.com Mon May 14 06:07:21 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 03:07:21 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090705130755j46393628h9b274acdcb73f534@mail.gmail.com> (Stephen John Smoogen's message of "Sun\, 13 May 2007 08\:55\:51 -0600") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <1178754142.3570.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178835308.3904.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178840079.3732.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <80d7e4090705130755j46393628h9b274acdcb73f534@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 13, 2007, "Stephen John Smoogen" wrote: > The first image that comes to my mind of 'Freedom' is Captain > America... Heh. Point taken ;-) Do you think if I used "software freedoms" it would help to bring to mind the four freedoms from the Free Software definition? Maybe capitalize them, like Free Software? > Hope this helps. It does, thanks a bunch, -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Mon May 14 11:50:42 2007 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 06:50:42 -0500 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <1178754142.3570.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178835308.3904.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178840079.3732.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <80d7e4090705130755j46393628h9b274acdcb73f534@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1179143442.19267.14.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 03:07 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 13, 2007, "Stephen John Smoogen" wrote: > > > The first image that comes to my mind of 'Freedom' is Captain > > America... > > Heh. Point taken ;-) > > Do you think if I used "software freedoms" it would help to bring to > mind the four freedoms from the Free Software definition? Maybe > capitalize them, like Free Software? Those are better. "Free Software" to a new person being introduced to open source will not sound like "free as in freedom" though. It will sound like "you don't have to pay for this". You need to spell it out at the top and then reference it similarly throughout your document. I think that in your wiki writeup (you can do a draft under your own page) you should link to whatever definition you would like. And in sections where you reference the "four freedoms" you need to at least list them once or link to them. josh From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon May 14 14:59:15 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 20:29:15 +0530 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> <4645B03D.9010507@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <46487943.20000@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> The way you ask for comments in guidelines is the process I have just >> outlined here. > > Except that presenting a draft if people don't even understand why any > change is needed will just get the draft discarded as pointless, so it > would be wasting my time and yours. Not if you include a section called "rationale" explaining why you are asking for the changes. > I realize that. I'm willing to provide the details. But saying > you're going to ask someone else what I mean, perhaps assuming I'm a > proxy for someone else, is not exactly respectful. Who said I am asking someone else? > I thought we'd been working long enough on this for at least you to > understand what I mean when I write "users' freedoms". This is quite > disappointing, because it feels like we've gone through this for a > number of times already :-( We have worked long enough, yes but there are several things that I am yet to understand your position on. You talk about user's freedom but then say that documentation or license text need not be modifiable. I need less abstract talk and more details. Please provide them. Rahul From kwade at redhat.com Mon May 14 17:47:56 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 10:47:56 -0700 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <1179143442.19267.14.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <1178754142.3570.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178835308.3904.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178840079.3732.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <80d7e4090705130755j46393628h9b274acdcb73f534@mail.gmail.com> <1179143442.19267.14.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1179164876.3439.101.camel@erato.phig.org> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 06:50 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > I think that in your wiki writeup (you can do a draft under your own > page) Although it doesn't (yet) exist, I set a watch on AlexandreOliva.* for Wiki changes. I'm interested in helping out with this. I think a well-written "Fedora Promise" is good for us. As with others on this list, it would be easiest for me to test the quality of draft by reading it. :) One recommendation is to get a final version together, and then have it vetted by a lawyer. The reason being, words have different meanings under a legal context that we would never imagine in other contexts. This is just basic QA. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 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 aoliva at redhat.com Mon May 14 19:35:25 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:35:25 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <46487943.20000@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Mon\, 14 May 2007 20\:29\:15 +0530") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> <4645B03D.9010507@fedoraproject.org> <46487943.20000@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 14, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> The way you ask for comments in guidelines is the process I have just >>> outlined here. >> >> Except that presenting a draft if people don't even understand why any >> change is needed will just get the draft discarded as pointless, so it >> would be wasting my time and yours. > Not if you include a section called "rationale" explaining why you are > asking for the changes. As long as the rationale is understood the way I mean it, yes. But my experience hasn't been exactly conducive to a belief that it will. Thus my request for comments, such that we can come up with something that we all understand and agree as to its meaning. >> I realize that. I'm willing to provide the details. But saying >> you're going to ask someone else what I mean, perhaps assuming I'm a >> proxy for someone else, is not exactly respectful. > Who said I am asking someone else? A number of times, when I came up with issues along these lines, they were deflected with claims that "we are already talking to the FSF about this." At least it felt that way to me. > We have worked long enough, yes but there are several things that I am > yet to understand your position on. You talk about user's freedom WRT software. > but then say that documentation or license text need not be > modifiable. I need less abstract talk and more details. Please > provide them. Documentation is important for software, but it's not software. It ought to be modifyable such that it can be maintained in sync with the software. Invariant sections don't stop this if used properly. Licenses are essential for software, but they're not software, and permitting them to be modified at will would render them pointless to defend our freedoms, whether they're included as part of Free Software or Free Documentation. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon May 14 19:48:43 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 01:18:43 +0530 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> <4645B03D.9010507@fedoraproject.org> <46487943.20000@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4648BD1B.2090408@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > As long as the rationale is understood the way I mean it, yes. But my > experience hasn't been exactly conducive to a belief that it will. > Thus my request for comments, such that we can come up with something > that we all understand and agree as to its meaning. Please just follow the process that many people have outlined to you now. You have no guarantee that the wording you drafted will make it in but you will have a significantly better chance if you follow the process and explain the rationale well within the draft. > A number of times, when I came up with issues along these lines, they > were deflected with claims that "we are already talking to the FSF > about this." At least it felt that way to me. Then you felt wrong. > Documentation is important for software, but it's not software. It > ought to be modifyable such that it can be maintained in sync with the > software. Invariant sections don't stop this if used properly. There is there no guarantee that it will be used properly. If anybody adds text like say "Free software sucks" in a invariant section then we can't include that documentation or remove that invariant section. That's just one issue. See the other ones highlighted in http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml Documentation that has invariant sections are clearly non-free. Any doubt about that? Rahul From aoliva at redhat.com Wed May 16 08:17:05 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 05:17:05 -0300 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: <4648BD1B.2090408@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Tue\, 15 May 2007 01\:18\:43 +0530") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> <4645B03D.9010507@fedoraproject.org> <46487943.20000@fedoraproject.org> <4648BD1B.2090408@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 14, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Documentation is important for software, but it's not software. It >> ought to be modifyable such that it can be maintained in sync with the >> software. Invariant sections don't stop this if used properly. > There is there no guarantee that it will be used properly. The point being? > If anybody adds text like say "Free software sucks" in a invariant > section then we can't include that documentation Why not? > See the other ones highlighted in > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml I'm familiar with those issues. I'm also familiar with GFDLv2 drafting, that addresses these concerns. http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html > Documentation that has invariant sections are clearly non-free. Documentation is not software. Licenses are not software. I'm trying to discuss software freedom issues. What are you trying to prove with this distraction? Invariant sections are appropriate for opinions, public statements and legal content. Sometimes it might make sense to permit invariant sections to be removed, but not modified. Most of the political-opinion texts FSFs publish permit verbatim copying only. Do you think this presents any form of moral inconsistency? I don't. I see this as using the right tool for the right job. There are moral and practical reasons for software freedom. Not all the same freedoms make the same sense for all kinds of forms of expression. Different kinds of texts, for example, serve different purposes, and their purposes may very well be negated if the wrong changes are made. Technical documentation content is supposed to match the software, so that ought to be as free as the software it matches. Non-technical content, such as a copy of the software license, must not be modified or removed. Copyright notices may be added and updated, but not removed. Of course invariant sections can be abused. So can software licenses and copyright notices. So what are you going to do, ban software licenses and copyright notices because they can be abused? Oh, non-Free firmware can also be abused. Can we ban it too, pretty please? ;-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed May 16 20:15:42 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 01:45:42 +0530 Subject: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> <4645B03D.9010507@fedoraproject.org> <46487943.20000@fedoraproject.org> <4648BD1B.2090408@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <464B666E.7020201@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 14, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >>> Documentation is important for software, but it's not software. It >>> ought to be modifyable such that it can be maintained in sync with the >>> software. Invariant sections don't stop this if used properly. > >> There is there no guarantee that it will be used properly. > > The point being? > It is open to abuse. >> If anybody adds text like say "Free software sucks" in a invariant >> section then we can't include that documentation > > Why not? Unrelated to technical content. > Documentation is not software. Licenses are not software. I'm trying > to discuss software freedom issues. What are you trying to prove with > this distraction? It is not a distraction from a distribution view point. We don't distribute just software. When discussing freedom in software how it applies to document is very related. > > So can software licenses and copyright notices. So what are you going > to do, ban software licenses and copyright notices because they can be > abused? Invariant sections in document has nothing in common with license and copyright notices. > Oh, non-Free firmware can also be abused. Can we ban it too, pretty > please? ;-) How are you helping? There is still no packaging draft presented. Rahul From mlum at redhat.com Wed May 16 23:54:25 2007 From: mlum at redhat.com (Margaret Lum) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:54:25 -0700 Subject: Branding and Fedora question.. Message-ID: <464B99B1.8090904@redhat.com> Hi folks, As we are in the process of open sourcing, there were some questions that came up. In particular is the issue of branding. It is my understanding from a few IRC conversations (#fedora-admin) that no project may use the Fedora brand WITHOUT undergoing the review process, or being subject to the restrictions (ie, building/running with GCJ for java components) of Fedora's packaging guidelines. A Fedora-branded package is one that will eventually be in the operating system. While I realize this may seem obvious, please clarify this mandate, so I can propagate the information to the right channels in my team. Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3229 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From wtogami at redhat.com Thu May 17 00:47:30 2007 From: wtogami at redhat.com (Warren Togami) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 20:47:30 -0400 Subject: Branding and Fedora question.. In-Reply-To: <464B99B1.8090904@redhat.com> References: <464B99B1.8090904@redhat.com> Message-ID: <464BA622.5070908@redhat.com> Margaret Lum wrote: > Hi folks, > > As we are in the process of open sourcing, there were some questions > that came up. In particular is the issue of branding. > > It is my understanding from a few IRC conversations (#fedora-admin) that > no project may use the Fedora brand WITHOUT undergoing the review > process, or being subject to the restrictions (ie, building/running with > GCJ for java components) of Fedora's packaging guidelines. A > Fedora-branded package is one that will eventually be in the operating > system. > > While I realize this may seem obvious, please clarify this mandate, so I > can propagate the information to the right channels in my team. > Given an understanding of your goals after our talk today... you don't need to have it pass the package review process as a prerequisite for calling it Fedora. The trademark guidelines were written mainly to limit the activities of outsiders from misusing the Fedora trademark. Consider the case of how Fedora Directory Server was named for the nearest comparable situation. FDS was named such as a business decision when it was revealed to the public under a FOSS license. It was many months later when it became technically possible to package FDS into a RPM suitable to pass review by Fedora's packaging guidelines. For your certificate related software that is in the process of opening, I would recommend treating that as an internal business decision too. You will want to think about trademarks of the product, whether the names should be different between the Enterprise and Fedora versions like it is with FDS and RHDS. The names chosen can be used within the preparations of the new instance of a community project website that we discussed earlier today. Then it is only a matter of bringing the business-side approval to get the blessing of the Fedora board, which shouldn't be any problem because the new release will be FOSS. Of course there are many more details here, but this is the basic idea. Warren Togami wtogami at redhat.com From aoliva at redhat.com Thu May 17 00:58:37 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 21:58:37 -0300 Subject: GFDL and documentation freedom (was: Re: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement) In-Reply-To: <464B666E.7020201@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Thu\, 17 May 2007 01\:45\:42 +0530") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> <4645B03D.9010507@fedoraproject.org> <46487943.20000@fedoraproject.org> <4648BD1B.2090408@fedoraproject.org> <464B666E.7020201@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 16, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> There is there no guarantee that it will be used properly. >> The point being? > It is open to abuse. This is a red herring. If someone modifies a GFDLed text in an abusive way, adding an invariant section, the community can just ignore that change, or go back to the previous published version of that document and start from that. If the original author published the first version of a text under the GFDL with an abusive invariant section, the community can just ignore that whole document, or realize that the if the GFDL didn't provide the author with means to publish that document in such a way that nobody could modify or remove that portion, he might as well have chosen another license that provided him with this ability, and then, depending on the chosen license, we might all end up worse off. Under this light, I ask: so what? >>> If anybody adds text like say "Free software sucks" in a invariant >>> section then we can't include that documentation >> Why not? > Unrelated to technical content. And? We ship the GPL. We even ship its preamble. How is any of that related to technical content? Why should this even matter? And, more importantly, how does the presence of invariant sections actually gets in the way of the exercise of any of the freedoms? >> Documentation is not software. Licenses are not software. I'm trying >> to discuss software freedom issues. What are you trying to prove with >> this distraction? > It is not a distraction from a distribution view point. We don't > distribute just software. When discussing freedom in software how it > applies to document is very related. I see. It is a major distraction from the point I was trying to make in this thread, but it is indeed a relevant discussion for Fedora. Please accept my apologies. I'm changing the subject to reflect the change of focus, such that it doesn't feel like a distraction any more ;-) >> So can software licenses and copyright notices. So what are you going >> to do, ban software licenses and copyright notices because they can be >> abused? > Invariant sections in document has nothing in common with license and > copyright notices. Except that one of the main purpose of invariant sections *is* to contain a copy of the license the program is under. Look, for example, at GCC's documentation. Start here: http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-3-Manual/gcc/copying.html Advance to the following section. How could the manual possibly cover the licensing terms of the program *and* of the manual itself if they couldn't be invariant sections? How could they even comply with the licensing terms of the license documents themselves, that don't permit modification? Now go back to chapter 16. That's the sort of content that some poeple who want to rewrite history (*) might qualify as abusive. But is that an invariant section? Surprise! It isn't! (*) from what's written in the last paragraph of section 2 in http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01 Now go back to chapter 15. That's another invariant section. Is it abusive? I don't think so. I think it's useful. I think it's very good that nobody can remove that piece of advice. Sure, it's probably a whole page, so it might be abusive in a very short document. But the GCC manual is several hundred pages long. So that's ok. And, again, that particular chapter is under a license that wouldn't permit integration as a section that wasn't invariant. >> Oh, non-Free firmware can also be abused. Can we ban it too, pretty >> please? ;-) > How are you helping? There is still no packaging draft presented. What does packaging have to do with this? The freedom promise darft was presented about a week ago. Still no comments, still no wiki page. As for the other document I mentioned, I'm still waiting for feedback from other FSFs members. Meanwhile, we're discussing applying firmer standards to documentation than to software, as if that even made sense. As if invariant sections could possibly become a more serious issue than being unable to improve, or get someone else to improve, the software that runs on one of the CPUs attached to a computer, just because it's called by this distracting term firmware. As if invariant sections could possibly become a more serious issue than being forced to publish modified versions of a program only intended for internal use, somehow notifying the original author about it in a timely fashion (what if it turns out to be impossible? you've already distributed the program by then!), or being restricted in how much one can charge for the distribution of the program in source form only? In case it's not clear, I'm talking about the Reciprocal Public License, that is held as an Open-Source License, but it quite obviously disrespects the freedoms to modify and to distribute modified versions of the program, by imposing unreasonable (and business-unfriendly!) conditions on them. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical I can't tell whether it was a mistake by OSI to approve it, or a bug in the OSD itself, since it was originally (DFSG) intended as a set of objective criteria with the same meaning as that of the FSD. Now, I don't know whether any software in Fedora is under this license. But our policies permit software under this license to be integrated. But then, all of a sudden, businesses built around charging for the service of distributing *only* source code in physical media, which from the Free Software goals of Fedora they might take for granted, would become copyright infringers, for making a profit out of Fedora source media sets. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu May 17 01:04:00 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 20:04:00 -0500 Subject: GFDL and documentation freedom (was: Re: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement) In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> <4645B03D.9010507@fedoraproject.org> <46487943.20000@fedoraproject.org> <4648BD1B.2090408@fedoraproject.org> <464B666E.7020201@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1179363840.6254.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 21:58 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Now, I don't know whether any software in Fedora is under this > license. But our policies permit software under this license to be > integrated. As much as I don't want to be on this thread... Nothing in Fedora is using the Reciprocal License at this time. Nothing in Fedora is using any _known_ non-free license at this time, with the exception of firmware. Alexandre, I know that you feel strongly on these issues, and I also know that you and Rahul are likely to argue perpetually, while actually agreeing on things. I suggest that you guys either take it off list, or move on to proposing drafts. Thanks, ~spot From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Thu May 17 01:13:02 2007 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 20:13:02 -0500 Subject: GFDL and documentation freedom (was: Re: FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement) In-Reply-To: <1179363840.6254.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> <4645B03D.9010507@fedoraproject.org> <46487943.20000@fedoraproject.org> <4648BD1B.2090408@fedoraproject.org> <464B666E.7020201@fedoraproject.org> <1179363840.6254.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1179364383.8746.14.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 20:04 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 21:58 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Now, I don't know whether any software in Fedora is under this > > license. But our policies permit software under this license to be > > integrated. > > As much as I don't want to be on this thread... > > Nothing in Fedora is using the Reciprocal License at this time. > Nothing in Fedora is using any _known_ non-free license at this time, > with the exception of firmware. > > Alexandre, I know that you feel strongly on these issues, and I also > know that you and Rahul are likely to argue perpetually, while actually > agreeing on things. > > I suggest that you guys either take it off list, or move on to proposing > drafts. + ? josh From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu May 17 01:18:10 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 06:48:10 +0530 Subject: GFDL and documentation freedom In-Reply-To: References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> <4645B03D.9010507@fedoraproject.org> <46487943.20000@fedoraproject.org> <4648BD1B.2090408@fedoraproject.org> <464B666E.7020201@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <464BAD52.5060800@fedoraproject.org> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 16, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >>>> There is there no guarantee that it will be used properly. > >>> The point being? > >> It is open to abuse. > > This is a red herring. > > If someone modifies a GFDLed text in an abusive way, adding an > invariant section, the community can just ignore that change, or go > back to the previous published version of that document and start from > that. > > If the original author published the first version of a text under the > GFDL with an abusive invariant section, the community can just ignore > that whole document, > Under this light, I ask: so what? Well yes, they can ignore and that's pretty similar to the treatment we give for non-free software. So the question that I am trying to get through, is non-free documents acceptable? It is clear that the impact of non-free documentation is going to be less than that of non-free software and FSF has considered propagation of its philosophy within those invariant sections to be more useful but is the impact and chance for abuse less than the advantages. I am not convinced but I am leaning towards blocking non-free documentation too and that includes content with invariant sections. > And? We ship the GPL. We even ship its preamble. How is any of that > related to technical content? Why should this even matter? And, more > importantly, how does the presence of invariant sections actually gets > in the way of the exercise of any of the freedoms? Documentation with invariant sections deprive us of the freedom to remove content that isn't applicable, retain or modify what is applicable. Consider the case of software with comments that can't be removed. Sure it doesn't affect functionality but it can be outdated, misleading etc. Now consider that such comments are what form documentation. Bad invariant sections can definitely be harmful. > > Except that one of the main purpose of invariant sections *is* to > contain a copy of the license the program is under. In part, yes. >> How are you helping? There is still no packaging draft presented. > > What does packaging have to do with this? Everything. Our packaging guidelines include licensing information including firmware. > The freedom promise darft was presented about a week ago. Still no > comments, still no wiki page. I did tell you this. I agree with some of the changes you mention but you won't feedback unless you follow process outlined to you several times. Now I am going to do it myself and stop relying on you to do anything constructive with this. End of discussion from my side. Thanks. Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu May 17 01:42:07 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:12:07 +0530 Subject: Separating licensing policy from packaging guidelines Message-ID: <464BB2EF.5030607@fedoraproject.org> Hi The packaging committee has clearly defined their role as taking care of how software is being packaged in Fedora and not what is being packaged. What is being packaged is defined by our legal policies which are currently intermixed in different sections along with the packaging guidelines. Several third party repositories have started relying on the Fedora Packaging guidelines but deviate in their licensing policies. Over a period of time, there are a number of clarifications that might required. Richard M Stallman has pointed out that our guidelines currently either Free software as defined by FSF and Open source software as defined by OSI to be included in Fedora. Some of the OSI certified Open Source licenses are considered non-free by FSF. We need to consider whether we want to slightly change the guidelines to require both Free and Open Source licenses or just Free software licenses. Brett Smith from FSF in a offline discussion pointed that we don't explicitly define the licensing for documentation. We need to make that clear. Alexandre Oliva has pointed out that we don't explicitly promise to provide source code to end users. I think that's a good thing to clarify too. Splitting up the legal policies from the packaging guidelines in helpful to define the role of Fedora Packaging Committee better and enable different repositories to reuse the packaging guidelines in a easier way Note that I did ask FESCo to look into that and don't think any changes were discussed. Does this splitting up the legal section into a separate policy document managed by Fedora Project Board sense to folks here? I can present a draft. Rahul From aoliva at redhat.com Thu May 17 07:26:52 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 04:26:52 -0300 Subject: Separating licensing policy from packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: <464BB2EF.5030607@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Thu\, 17 May 2007 07\:12\:07 +0530") References: <464BB2EF.5030607@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 16, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Does this splitting up the legal section into a separate policy > document managed by Fedora Project Board sense to folks here? I can > present a draft. Yes, it makes a lot of sense to me, thanks for bringing this up. FWIW, this was one of the various issues I still felt I needed feedback on before submitting a draft with the process you're insisting that I follow, but that you just turn around and refrain from following. Good thing we're on the same page, after all. Even though you've unilaterally took this effort out of my hands, I'll note that I have no objections to this move, and I'll point that I will provide you with a copy of the text that I've worked on and that I'm waiting for feedback from other FSFes on as soon as I get it. I'm sorry that it's taken so long. I'm actually happy that you couldn't wait, it's this kind of excitement that we need ;-) Best regards, -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From aoliva at redhat.com Thu May 17 07:38:01 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 04:38:01 -0300 Subject: GFDL and documentation freedom In-Reply-To: <464BAD52.5060800@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Thu\, 17 May 2007 06\:48\:10 +0530") References: <46424FA4.9060606@fedoraproject.org> <46426455.40501@fedoraproject.org> <46451078.3030101@fedoraproject.org> <46456A76.4010303@fedoraproject.org> <4645B03D.9010507@fedoraproject.org> <46487943.20000@fedoraproject.org> <4648BD1B.2090408@fedoraproject.org> <464B666E.7020201@fedoraproject.org> <464BAD52.5060800@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On May 16, 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Documentation with invariant sections deprive us of the freedom to > remove content that isn't applicable, Since it's most often non-technical, I'm not sure it can be said to be not applicable. > Consider the case of software with comments that can't be > removed. You don't even have to make it theoretical. Pretty much every file I look at starts with: /* Something about this particular file Copyright (C) YYYY, YYYY, YYYY... Free Software Foundation, Inc. This file is part of GCC. GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version. GCC is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with GCC; see the file COPYING. If not, write to the Free Software Foundation, 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. */ > Sure it doesn't affect functionality but it can be outdated, > misleading etc. This doesn't seem to be a problem for the same kinds of uses intended for Invariant Sections in the GFDL. > Now consider that such comments are what form documentation. Making the documentation portion invariant would be a very stupid thing to do. > Bad invariant sections can definitely be harmful. No dispute about that. So, instead of ruling out documents with invariant sections just because some invariant sections could be harmful, how about ruling out documents with invariant sections that *are* harmful? As in, instead of banning software because some software can be harmful (e.g., non-Free Software), how about banning only software that is actually harmful? E.g., if you ever find a piece of actual documentation in an invariant section, you have grounds to push the entire piece of documentation out. But as long as the documentation serves its purpose as such, and any invariant sections present are serving their intended purpose, leave it alone, otherwise you'll be throwing the baby out along with the bath water, and for what purpose? It's not like properly-used invariant sections can possibly harm the freedom to use, study, modify or share the documentation proper. It most often isn't even a small obstacle to any of these freedoms. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From mspevack at redhat.com Thu May 17 16:06:12 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 12:06:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 Message-ID: All, Wanted to get this summary out for everyone while there's still a small window to fix any major issues. Thanks, Max === TOPIC 1 -- FIRSTBOOT ...in Fedora Core 6 There was a module in firstboot that displayed the EULA and required the user to click a radio button saying that they *AGREED* with it before being allowed to move on. There were a variety of things wrong with that use case, which I shall not go into here. ...in Fedora 7 The module has been changed. Now, rather than displaying the EULA, it displays a text box that tells users the following: "Thank you for installing Fedora. Fedora is a compilation of software packages, each under its own license. The compilation is made available under the GNU General Public License version 2. There are no restrictions of using, copying, or modifying this code. However, there are restrictions and obligations that apply to the redistribution of the code, either in its original or a modified form. Among other things, those restrictions/obligations pertain to the licensing of the redistribution, trademark rights, and export control. If you would like to understand what those restrictions are, please visit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA." The user simply checks a button that says "Understood, please proceed." Thus, firstboot no longer requires the user to *AGREE* to/with anything, merly to *ACKNOWLEDGE* having been presented with some information. TOPIC 2 -- EULA There have been a few changes made to the EULA between Fedora Core 6 and Fedora 7. The rest of this email is a diff between the old and the new EULA files, and a brief discussion of those changes. A full copy of the proposed EULA is attached, and in its current form it has been approved by Legal. 2c2 < FEDORA(TM) CORE --- > FEDORA(TM) 12c12 < 1. THE SOFTWARE. Fedora Core (the "Software") is a modular Linux --- > 1. THE SOFTWARE. Fedora (the "Software") is a modular Linux COMMENTS -- all we're doing here is changing the name from "Fedora Core" to "Fedora". 17,18c17,21 < below, the license terms for the components permit User to copy, < modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and --- > below, the license terms for the components permit User to copy > and redistribute the component. With the exception of certain > firmware files (denoted in the License field of the RPM packaging), > the license terms for the comopnents permit User to copy, modify > and redistribute the component, in both source code and COMMENTS -- this change references our binary firmware exception: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BinaryFirmware 38,40c41 < "Fedora" trademark. Those images are found in the anaconda-images < and the fedora-logos packages. Merely deleting these files may < corrupt the Software. --- > "Fedora" trademark. Those images are in the fedora-logos package. COMMENTS -- the "anaconda-images" package no longer exists. We've also removed the line "Merely deleting these files may corrupt the Software." because it is not applicable in a document like this. If a user wants to delete some files and see what happens, that is their right. 66c67 < regulations (currently Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan --- > regulations (currently Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan COMMENTS -- this is the export control list that all Red Hat products must abide by, including Fedora. 92c93 < Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 Fedora Project. --- > Copyright (C) 2007 Fedora Project. COMMENTS -- all we have done here is update the copyright date. -------------- next part -------------- LICENSE AGREEMENT FEDORA(TM) This agreement governs the download, installation or use of the Software (as defined below) and any updates to the Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. Subject to the following terms, Fedora Project grants to the user ("User") a license to this collective work pursuant to the GNU General Public License. By downloading, installing or using the Software, User agrees to the terms of this agreement. 1. THE SOFTWARE. Fedora (the "Software") is a modular Linux operating system consisting of hundreds of software components. The end user license agreement for each component is located in the component's source code. With the exception of certain image files containing the Fedora trademark identified in Section 2 below, the license terms for the components permit User to copy and redistribute the component. With the exception of certain firmware files (denoted in the License field of the RPM packaging), the license terms for the comopnents permit User to copy, modify and redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms. This agreement does not limit User's rights under, or grant User rights that supersede, the license terms of any particular component. 2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. The Software and each of its components, including the source code, documentation, appearance, structure and organization are copyrighted by Fedora Project and others and are protected under copyright and other laws. Title to the Software and any component, or to any copy, modification, or merged portion shall remain with the aforementioned, subject to the applicable license. The "Fedora" trademark is a trademark of Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") in the U.S. and other countries and is used by permission. This agreement permits User to distribute unmodified copies of Software using the Fedora trademark on the condition that User follows Red Hat's trademark guidelines located at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal. User must abide by these trademark guidelines when distributing the Software, regardless of whether the Software has been modified. If User modifies the Software, then User must replace all images containing the "Fedora" trademark. Those images are in the fedora-logos package. 3. LIMITED WARRANTY. Except as specifically stated in this agreement or a license for a particular component, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, THE SOFTWARE AND THE COMPONENTS ARE PROVIDED AND LICENSED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Neither the Fedora Project nor Red Hat warrants that the functions contained in the Software will meet User's requirements or that the operation of the Software will be entirely error free or appear precisely as described in the accompanying documentation. USE OF THE SOFTWARE IS AT USER'S OWN RISK. 4. LIMITATION OF REMEDIES AND LIABILITY. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, FEDORA PROJECT AND RED HAT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO USER FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, LOST PROFITS OR LOST SAVINGS ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, EVEN IF FEDORA PROJECT OR RED HAT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. 5. EXPORT CONTROL. As required by U.S. law, User represents and warrants that it: (a) understands that the Software is subject to export controls under the U.S. Commerce Department's Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"); (b) is not located in a prohibited destination country under the EAR or U.S. sanctions regulations (currently Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan and Syria); (c) will not export, re-export, or transfer the Software to any prohibited destination, entity, or individual without the necessary export license(s) or authorizations(s) from the U.S. Government; (d) will not use or transfer the Software for use in any sensitive nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or missile technology end-uses unless authorized by the U.S. Government by regulation or specific license; (e) understands and agrees that if it is in the United States and exports or transfers the Software to eligible end users, it will, as required by EAR Section 741.17(e), submit semi-annual reports to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), which include the name and address (including country) of each transferee; and (f) understands that countries other than the United States may restrict the import, use, or export of encryption products and that it shall be solely responsible for compliance with any such import, use, or export restrictions. 6. GENERAL. If any provision of this agreement is held to be unenforceable, that shall not affect the enforceability of the remaining provisions. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina and of the United States, without regard to any conflict of laws provisions, except that the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods shall not apply. Copyright (C) 2007 Fedora Project. All rights reserved. "Red Hat" and "Fedora" are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc. "Linux" is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. From pjones at redhat.com Thu May 17 16:53:28 2007 From: pjones at redhat.com (Peter Jones) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 12:53:28 -0400 Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <464C8888.9070901@redhat.com> Max Spevack wrote: > All, > > Wanted to get this summary out for everyone while there's still a small > window to fix any major issues. "diff -u", dude. > 17,18c17,21 > < below, the license terms for the components permit User to copy, > < modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and > --- >> below, the license terms for the components permit User to copy >> and redistribute the component. With the exception of certain >> firmware files (denoted in the License field of the RPM packaging), >> the license terms for the comopnents permit User to copy, modify ^^^^^^^^^^ A spell checker might be a good idea, too. -- Peter From mspevack at redhat.com Thu May 17 17:24:50 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 13:24:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: <464C8888.9070901@redhat.com> References: <464C8888.9070901@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 May 2007, Peter Jones wrote: > "diff -u", dude. attached as diff.txt > A spell checker might be a good idea, too. yeah. thanks :-) -------------- next part -------------- --- old.txt 2007-05-16 12:15:43.000000000 -0400 +++ new.txt 2007-05-17 13:24:15.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ LICENSE AGREEMENT - FEDORA(TM) CORE + FEDORA(TM) This agreement governs the download, installation or use of the Software (as defined below) and any updates to the Software, regardless of the @@ -9,13 +9,16 @@ General Public License. By downloading, installing or using the Software, User agrees to the terms of this agreement. -1. THE SOFTWARE. Fedora Core (the "Software") is a modular Linux +1. THE SOFTWARE. Fedora (the "Software") is a modular Linux operating system consisting of hundreds of software components. The end user license agreement for each component is located in the component's source code. With the exception of certain image files containing the Fedora trademark identified in Section 2 - below, the license terms for the components permit User to copy, - modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and + below, the license terms for the components permit User to copy + and redistribute the component. With the exception of certain + firmware files (denoted in the License field of the RPM packaging), + the license terms for the components permit User to copy, modify + and redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms. This agreement does not limit User's rights under, or grant User rights that supersede, the license terms of any particular component. @@ -35,9 +38,7 @@ trademark guidelines when distributing the Software, regardless of whether the Software has been modified. If User modifies the Software, then User must replace all images containing the - "Fedora" trademark. Those images are found in the anaconda-images - and the fedora-logos packages. Merely deleting these files may - corrupt the Software. + "Fedora" trademark. Those images are in the fedora-logos package. 3. LIMITED WARRANTY. Except as specifically stated in this agreement or a license for a particular component, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT @@ -63,7 +64,7 @@ export controls under the U.S. Commerce Department's Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"); (b) is not located in a prohibited destination country under the EAR or U.S. sanctions - regulations (currently Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan + regulations (currently Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan and Syria); (c) will not export, re-export, or transfer the Software to any prohibited destination, entity, or individual without the necessary export license(s) or authorizations(s) from @@ -89,7 +90,7 @@ Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods shall not apply. -Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 Fedora Project. +Copyright (C) 2007 Fedora Project. All rights reserved. "Red Hat" and "Fedora" are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc. "Linux" is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. From aoliva at redhat.com Thu May 17 20:45:48 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:45:48 -0300 Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: (Max Spevack's message of "Thu\, 17 May 2007 12\:06\:12 -0400 \(EDT\)") References: Message-ID: On May 17, 2007, Max Spevack wrote: > The compilation is made available under the GNU General Public > License version 2. I don't quite understand what this is supposed to mean. Is it correct to assume that the legal implications of this move have been run through legal, and that it is not in fact a problem to release under the GPL a compilation that includes both software and other kinds of copyrightable works, some of which are licensed under licenses that are incompatible with the GPL? And that this doesn't amount to dual-licensing logos and trademarks that are AFAIK supposed to be offered under the trademark policy only, not under the GPL? If nothing else, some major clarification of what this means would be in order, otherwise people might get impressions that they can do things we don't mean them to do (like modifying non-Free firmware or invariant sections of GFDL documents we ship, or using our logos and trademarks without complying with the trademark policites). > There are no restrictions of using, copying, True AFAIK > or modifying this code. Not quite. Even the most liberal Free Software licenses establish a few restrictions on modifications you can make, such as not granting permission to remove or modify the license and the copyright notices. In particular, the GPLv2 itself does, so this statement is inconsistent with the license in the paragraph before it. > redistribution of the code, either in its original or a modified form. > Among other things, those restrictions/obligations pertain to the > licensing of the redistribution, trademark rights, and export control. Some of these might also be in conflict with the license stated in the paragraph before. > Thus, firstboot no longer requires the user to *AGREE* to/with > anything, merly to *ACKNOWLEDGE* having been presented with some > information. Excellent! > COMMENTS -- the "anaconda-images" package no longer exists. We've > also removed the line "Merely deleting these files may corrupt the > Software." because it is not applicable in a document like this. And, if it's true, it would probably show that the combination is not mere aggregation, and then say copyleft might apply to the trademarks and logos, which AFAIK is not intended. I hope this helps, -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu May 17 21:00:06 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 02:30:06 +0530 Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <464CC256.1080104@fedoraproject.org> Max Spevack wrote: > All, > > Wanted to get this summary out for everyone while there's still a small > window to fix any major issues. > > Thanks, > Max > > === > > TOPIC 1 -- FIRSTBOOT > > ...in Fedora Core 6 > > There was a module in firstboot that displayed the EULA and required the > user to click a radio button saying that they *AGREED* with it before > being allowed to move on. There were a variety of things wrong with > that use case, which I shall not go into here. > > ...in Fedora 7 > > The module has been changed. Now, rather than displaying the EULA, it > displays a text box that tells users the following: > > "Thank you for installing Fedora. Fedora is a compilation of software > packages, each under its own license. The compilation is made available > under the GNU General Public License version 2. There are no > restrictions of using, copying, or modifying this code. However, there > are restrictions and obligations that apply to the redistribution of the > code, either in its original or a modified form. Among other things, > those restrictions/obligations pertain to the licensing of the > redistribution, trademark rights, and export control. > > If you would like to understand what those restrictions are, please > visit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA." > > The user simply checks a button that says "Understood, please proceed." > > Thus, firstboot no longer requires the user to *AGREE* to/with anything, > merly to *ACKNOWLEDGE* having been presented with some information. > > > TOPIC 2 -- EULA > > There have been a few changes made to the EULA between Fedora Core 6 and > Fedora 7. The rest of this email is a diff between the old and the new > EULA files, and a brief discussion of those changes. A full copy of the > proposed EULA is attached, and in its current form it has been approved > by Legal. > > 2c2 > < FEDORA(TM) CORE > --- >> FEDORA(TM) > 12c12 > < 1. THE SOFTWARE. Fedora Core (the "Software") is a modular Linux > --- >> 1. THE SOFTWARE. Fedora (the "Software") is a modular Linux > > COMMENTS -- all we're doing here is changing the name from "Fedora Core" > to "Fedora". > > > 17,18c17,21 > < below, the license terms for the components permit User to copy, > < modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and > --- >> below, the license terms for the components permit User to copy >> and redistribute the component. With the exception of certain >> firmware files (denoted in the License field of the RPM packaging), >> the license terms for the comopnents permit User to copy, modify >> and redistribute the component, in both source code and > > COMMENTS -- this change references our binary firmware exception: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BinaryFirmware Not all the spins of Fedora would necessarily include such firmware and I am think we should have a slightly different approach to firmware on some occasions. Details post Fedora 7 release. It might be more appropriate to say "With the potential exception of certain firmware files..." Rahul From pjones at redhat.com Thu May 17 21:06:14 2007 From: pjones at redhat.com (Peter Jones) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:06:14 -0400 Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <464CC3C6.6000104@redhat.com> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 17, 2007, Max Spevack wrote: >> or modifying this code. > > Not quite. Even the most liberal Free Software licenses establish a > few restrictions on modifications you can make, such as not granting > permission to remove or modify the license and the copyright notices. > In particular, the GPLv2 itself does, so this statement is > inconsistent with the license in the paragraph before it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the GPL (and I think all the other common cases) puts a restriction on distribution, not on modification. You can take the copyright notices out all you like as long as you never pass the code along. -- Peter From aoliva at redhat.com Thu May 17 21:48:05 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 18:48:05 -0300 Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: <464CC3C6.6000104@redhat.com> (Peter Jones's message of "Thu\, 17 May 2007 17\:06\:14 -0400") References: <464CC3C6.6000104@redhat.com> Message-ID: On May 17, 2007, Peter Jones wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On May 17, 2007, Max Spevack wrote: >>> or modifying this code. >> >> Not quite. Even the most liberal Free Software licenses establish a >> few restrictions on modifications you can make > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the GPL (and I think all the other common > cases) puts a restriction on distribution, not on modification. IANAL, but I understand at least GPLv2 imposes obligations even for private modifications. See section 2. 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: I realize there are two ways to read this: 2.1. You may modify ... provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ... 2.2. You may also copy and distribute ... provided that you also meet all of the conditions above or as 2. You may modify, copy and distribute, but in order to have permission to do all of them, you must meet all of these conditions In the second interpretation, modification alone wouldn't bring any responsibility whatsoever, since no other portion of the license brings any such responsibility. But this interpretation would render meaningless the "or if you modify it" in the following paragraph in the preamble, that is intended, among other things, to guide the legal interpretation of the legal terms: To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. So I believe the first interpretation is the correct one, and that the GPLv2 does indeed establish conditions for modification. It's looking like GPLv3 is going to take them a bit further. I haven't reviewed many of other Free Software licenses with so much care, so it is quite possible that other licenses do indeed permit unrestricted modification. But the fact that GPLv2 may and GPLv3 will establish such conditions, it means Free Software is not incompatible with them, and so stating that modification is unrestricted as a general rule seems like a non-starter. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From jkeating at redhat.com Fri May 18 13:36:12 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 09:36:12 -0400 Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> On Thursday 17 May 2007 16:45:48 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Is it correct to assume that the legal implications of this move have > been run through legal Given that Max has said "A full copy of the proposed EULA is attached, and in its current form it has been approved by Legal." I would say yes. The legal team for the company you work for has approved this. -- 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 mspevack at redhat.com Fri May 18 14:29:31 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 10:29:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 May 2007, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 17 May 2007 16:45:48 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Is it correct to assume that the legal implications of this move have >> been run through legal > > Given that Max has said "A full copy of the proposed EULA is attached, > and in its current form it has been approved by Legal." I would say > yes. The legal team for the company you work for has approved this. :-) that said, I am going to run these questions back to Mark Webbink and see if he'd like to suggest any changes. That's why we put it out there early. --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 mspevack at redhat.com Fri May 18 14:31:24 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 10:31:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 17 May 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 17, 2007, Max Spevack wrote: > >> The compilation is made available under the GNU General Public >> License version 2. > > I don't quite understand what this is supposed to mean. > > Is it correct to assume that the legal implications of this move have > been run through legal, and that it is not in fact a problem to > release under the GPL a compilation that includes both software and > other kinds of copyrightable works, some of which are licensed under > licenses that are incompatible with the GPL? And that this doesn't > amount to dual-licensing logos and trademarks that are AFAIK supposed > to be offered under the trademark policy only, not under the GPL? > > If nothing else, some major clarification of what this means would be > in order, otherwise people might get impressions that they can do > things we don't mean them to do (like modifying non-Free firmware or > invariant sections of GFDL documents we ship, or using our logos and > trademarks without complying with the trademark policites). This text was actually written by Mr. Webbink. But I will show him your comments and see if there's anything in here that he things needs to change. --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 aoliva at redhat.com Fri May 18 18:57:56 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 15:57:56 -0300 Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> (Jesse Keating's message of "Fri\, 18 May 2007 09\:36\:12 -0400") References: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On May 18, 2007, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 17 May 2007 16:45:48 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Is it correct to assume that the legal implications of this move have >> been run through legal > Given that Max has said "A full copy of the proposed EULA is attached, and in > its current form it has been approved by Legal." I would say yes. No so fast! Per what Max had written, legal had approved the EULA. What he wrote then didn't apply to the Firstboot text. So I asked. > The legal team for the company you work for has approved this. Now we know this is true, so I'm no longer concerned, and I'll go study copyrights on collections, since my lack of knowledge on this topic is showing ;-) Cheers, -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From mspevack at redhat.com Fri May 18 19:01:47 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 15:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: References: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 May 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 18, 2007, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> On Thursday 17 May 2007 16:45:48 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> Is it correct to assume that the legal implications of this move have >>> been run through legal > >> Given that Max has said "A full copy of the proposed EULA is attached, and in >> its current form it has been approved by Legal." I would say yes. > > No so fast! Per what Max had written, legal had approved the EULA. > What he wrote then didn't apply to the Firstboot text. So I asked. > >> The legal team for the company you work for has approved this. > > Now we know this is true, so I'm no longer concerned, and I'll go > study copyrights on collections, since my lack of knowledge on this > topic is showing ;-) Easy, everyone. :-) I've sent Mark a note with some of the comments in this thread, and if he wants to recommend any changes to firstboot or EULA text, he will. --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 kwade at redhat.com Sun May 20 00:07:38 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 17:07:38 -0700 Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: References: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1179619658.3439.428.camel@erato.phig.org> On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 15:57 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 18, 2007, Jesse Keating wrote: > > The legal team for the company you work for has approved this. > > Now we know this is true, so I'm no longer concerned, and I'll go > study copyrights on collections, since my lack of knowledge on this > topic is showing ;-) I've experienced several situations where our smart software developers have identified a potential problem that our smart lawyers didn't think of. As a consequence, legal documents got changed.[1] One thing that makes our lawyers rock is that, in understanding the open collaborative process, they gain from it. One doesn't have to be a lawyer to have good ideas about improving a legal document. :) - Karsten [1] Which is why this shirt was designed, to honor the fine mind of Mr. van Riel: http://www.cafepress.com/quaid.58209160 -- Karsten Wade, 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 Sun May 20 00:13:18 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 17:13:18 -0700 Subject: Separating licensing policy from packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: <464BB2EF.5030607@fedoraproject.org> References: <464BB2EF.5030607@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1179619998.3439.434.camel@erato.phig.org> On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 07:12 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Brett > Smith from FSF in a offline discussion pointed that we don't explicitly > define the licensing for documentation. We need to make that clear. This is definitely a case of answers being present, but not on the page that matters. In this consolidation, let's look at moving some/all of the licensing discussion from the DocsProject namespace to either the Legal or FAQ namespaces: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Licensing/FAQ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Licensing/Discussion http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Licensing/StepsToOPL Maybe the background information should remain where it is (under a newly minted DocsProject/Licensing page that doesn't exist), and the FAQ can move to a new Legal/FAQ page. I do think we should keep the legal FAQs separate from the main FAQ; we can just have one or several deep links from FAQ to Legal/FAQ. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 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 mspevack at redhat.com Tue May 22 14:44:10 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 10:44:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: References: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 May 2007, Max Spevack wrote: > I've sent Mark a note with some of the comments in this thread, and if > he wants to recommend any changes to firstboot or EULA text, he will. Here's what I got back from Mark: He's looked at the questions/comments that were made on this thread, and he didn't see anything that causes him concern. He believes that we address the questions adequately -- that people are put on notice with the text in Firstboot that there are some terms in the EULA that impact redistribution, restrict trademark use, and cover export control. And that if someone wants to know more specifics, we give them the location of the full EULA. Which, by the way, is now on the wiki: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA -- 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 katzj at redhat.com Tue May 22 15:27:20 2007 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:27:20 -0400 Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: References: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1179847640.4378.21.camel@aglarond.local> On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 10:44 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > that if someone wants to know more specifics, we give them the location > of the full EULA. > > Which, by the way, is now on the wiki: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA Do we want to actually put this in a release specific path? The EULA does change from time to time and won't retroactively apply to older releases. So thinking ahead to that and having the URL appropriately versioned seems like a good idea... Jeremy From mspevack at redhat.com Tue May 22 15:37:51 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:37:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: <1179847640.4378.21.camel@aglarond.local> References: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> <1179847640.4378.21.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 May 2007, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 10:44 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: >> that if someone wants to know more specifics, we give them the location >> of the full EULA. >> >> Which, by the way, is now on the wiki: >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA > > Do we want to actually put this in a release specific path? The EULA > does change from time to time and won't retroactively apply to older > releases. So thinking ahead to that and having the URL appropriately > versioned seems like a good idea... You're right. I can change it to a Fedora 7 EULA page, and we can use #redirect to have /Licenses/EULA point to "current" --Max From mspevack at redhat.com Tue May 22 16:14:14 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: References: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> <1179847640.4378.21.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 May 2007, Max Spevack wrote: >> Do we want to actually put this in a release specific path? The EULA >> does change from time to time and won't retroactively apply to older >> releases. So thinking ahead to that and having the URL appropriately >> versioned seems like a good idea... > > You're right. I can change it to a Fedora 7 EULA page, and we can use > #redirect to have /Licenses/EULA point to "current" When the wiki comes back up, go to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licenses/EULA and see if that is better. --Max From tchung at fedoraproject.org Tue May 22 16:56:51 2007 From: tchung at fedoraproject.org (Thomas Chung) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 09:56:51 -0700 Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: References: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> <1179847640.4378.21.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <369bce3b0705220956t23464a8dw85d90f1ea4598883@mail.gmail.com> On 5/22/07, Max Spevack wrote: > On Tue, 22 May 2007, Max Spevack wrote: > > >> Do we want to actually put this in a release specific path? The EULA > >> does change from time to time and won't retroactively apply to older > >> releases. So thinking ahead to that and having the URL appropriately > >> versioned seems like a good idea... > > > > You're right. I can change it to a Fedora 7 EULA page, and we can use > > #redirect to have /Licenses/EULA point to "current" > > When the wiki comes back up, go to: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licenses/EULA > > and see if that is better. > > --Max Hi Max, That page is empty. Did you mean following page? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA Regards, -- Thomas Chung http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThomasChung From mspevack at redhat.com Tue May 22 17:01:26 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:01:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: <369bce3b0705220956t23464a8dw85d90f1ea4598883@mail.gmail.com> References: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> <1179847640.4378.21.camel@aglarond.local> <369bce3b0705220956t23464a8dw85d90f1ea4598883@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 May 2007, Thomas Chung wrote: > Did you mean following page? > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA yes :-) From tchung at fedoraproject.org Tue May 22 23:54:08 2007 From: tchung at fedoraproject.org (Thomas Chung) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:54:08 -0700 Subject: Official Request: Image Standard for Fedora Project Message-ID: <369bce3b0705221654q7aa2414ej794f3fd8635e876b@mail.gmail.com> All, This is an official request for Fedora Project Board Meeting Agenda. Agenda: Image Standard for Fedora Project. Background: Fedora Websites Team, Fedora Arts Team and Fedora Infrastructure Team were discussing which image format is appropriate standard for Fedora Project. Thomas Chung believes PNG is the best format since it's patent-free according to FSF. Toshio Kuratomi believes JPEG is also patent-free format and it should not be banned from using it. Related List Discussions: * https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/2007-May/msg00243.html * https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-infrastructure-list/2007-May/msg00107.html We'd like to ask Fedora Project Board to find out if JPEG is truly "patent-free" format by consulting with Lawyers and come up with a decision which format is appropriate for Fedora Project cross-wide. Best Regards, -- Thomas Chung http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThomasChung From a.badger at gmail.com Wed May 23 00:09:59 2007 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:09:59 -0700 Subject: Official Request: Image Standard for Fedora Project In-Reply-To: <369bce3b0705221654q7aa2414ej794f3fd8635e876b@mail.gmail.com> References: <369bce3b0705221654q7aa2414ej794f3fd8635e876b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1179878999.5161.133.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 16:54 -0700, Thomas Chung wrote: > All, > > This is an official request for Fedora Project Board Meeting Agenda. > > Agenda: Image Standard for Fedora Project. > > Background: Fedora Websites Team, Fedora Arts Team and Fedora > Infrastructure Team were discussing which image format is appropriate > standard for Fedora Project. Thomas Chung believes PNG is the best > format since it's patent-free according to FSF. Toshio Kuratomi > believes JPEG is also patent-free format and it should not be banned > from using it. > > Related List Discussions: > * https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/2007-May/msg00243.html > * https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-infrastructure-list/2007-May/msg00107.html > > We'd like to ask Fedora Project Board to find out if JPEG is truly > "patent-free" format by consulting with Lawyers and come up with a > decision which format is appropriate for Fedora Project cross-wide. > Note: You'll also want to add gif to this list as it's one of the formats listed here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tours/FedoraCore6 ''' Videos can be OGG theora files or GIF animations. ''' And therefore should also be usable if there are other places on the site that need animations. Note 2: Each of these formats has their own place: * GIF is the only choice for simple animations. * PNG is good for logos, line art, images with sharp edges and few colors, and images that you want to be able to reproduce exactly. * JPG is good for photographs, screenshots, things with many colors and no need for sharp edges, and almost every time you need to reduce file size in consideration of people downloading over dialup. * If you want a copy of a photograph that you can modify later you probably want to save the source file as a PNG or tiff. -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 notting at redhat.com Wed May 23 03:02:44 2007 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 23:02:44 -0400 Subject: Official Request: Image Standard for Fedora Project In-Reply-To: <369bce3b0705221654q7aa2414ej794f3fd8635e876b@mail.gmail.com> References: <369bce3b0705221654q7aa2414ej794f3fd8635e876b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070523030244.GA29903@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Thomas Chung (tchung at fedoraproject.org) said: > This is an official request for Fedora Project Board Meeting Agenda. > > Agenda: Image Standard for Fedora Project. > > Background: Fedora Websites Team, Fedora Arts Team and Fedora > Infrastructure Team were discussing which image format is appropriate > standard for Fedora Project. Thomas Chung believes PNG is the best > format since it's patent-free according to FSF. Toshio Kuratomi > believes JPEG is also patent-free format and it should not be banned > from using it. Why does it matter? Use what's appropriate for the image in question. Bill From stickster at gmail.com Wed May 23 03:09:09 2007 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 23:09:09 -0400 Subject: Official Request: Image Standard for Fedora Project In-Reply-To: <20070523030244.GA29903@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <369bce3b0705221654q7aa2414ej794f3fd8635e876b@mail.gmail.com> <20070523030244.GA29903@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1179889749.4990.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 23:02 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Thomas Chung (tchung at fedoraproject.org) said: > > This is an official request for Fedora Project Board Meeting Agenda. > > > > Agenda: Image Standard for Fedora Project. > > > > Background: Fedora Websites Team, Fedora Arts Team and Fedora > > Infrastructure Team were discussing which image format is appropriate > > standard for Fedora Project. Thomas Chung believes PNG is the best > > format since it's patent-free according to FSF. Toshio Kuratomi > > believes JPEG is also patent-free format and it should not be banned > > from using it. > > Why does it matter? Use what's appropriate for the image in question. +1, besides which I'm not sure this needs to be elevated to the Board unless these groups can't come to an agreement/good answer themselves. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- 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 tchung at fedoraproject.org Wed May 23 07:54:12 2007 From: tchung at fedoraproject.org (Thomas Chung) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 00:54:12 -0700 Subject: Official Request: Image Standard for Fedora Project In-Reply-To: <1179889749.4990.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <369bce3b0705221654q7aa2414ej794f3fd8635e876b@mail.gmail.com> <20070523030244.GA29903@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1179889749.4990.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <369bce3b0705230054x144b3d87x391b71df14f2d034@mail.gmail.com> On 5/22/07, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 23:02 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Thomas Chung (tchung at fedoraproject.org) said: > > > This is an official request for Fedora Project Board Meeting Agenda. > > > > > > Agenda: Image Standard for Fedora Project. > > > > > > Background: Fedora Websites Team, Fedora Arts Team and Fedora > > > Infrastructure Team were discussing which image format is appropriate > > > standard for Fedora Project. Thomas Chung believes PNG is the best > > > format since it's patent-free according to FSF. Toshio Kuratomi > > > believes JPEG is also patent-free format and it should not be banned > > > from using it. > > > > Why does it matter? Use what's appropriate for the image in question. > > +1, besides which I'm not sure this needs to be elevated to the Board > unless these groups can't come to an agreement/good answer themselves. This is a matter of legal issue which we can't seem to agree upon since we don't know for sure if JPEG is "patent-free" format or it's appropriate to use on Fedora Project. Regards, -- Thomas Chung http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThomasChung From stickster at gmail.com Wed May 23 13:03:30 2007 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 09:03:30 -0400 Subject: Official Request: Image Standard for Fedora Project In-Reply-To: <369bce3b0705230054x144b3d87x391b71df14f2d034@mail.gmail.com> References: <369bce3b0705221654q7aa2414ej794f3fd8635e876b@mail.gmail.com> <20070523030244.GA29903@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1179889749.4990.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <369bce3b0705230054x144b3d87x391b71df14f2d034@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1179925410.28399.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 00:54 -0700, Thomas Chung wrote: > On 5/22/07, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 23:02 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > Thomas Chung (tchung at fedoraproject.org) said: > > > > This is an official request for Fedora Project Board Meeting Agenda. > > > > > > > > Agenda: Image Standard for Fedora Project. > > > > > > > > Background: Fedora Websites Team, Fedora Arts Team and Fedora > > > > Infrastructure Team were discussing which image format is appropriate > > > > standard for Fedora Project. Thomas Chung believes PNG is the best > > > > format since it's patent-free according to FSF. Toshio Kuratomi > > > > believes JPEG is also patent-free format and it should not be banned > > > > from using it. > > > > > > Why does it matter? Use what's appropriate for the image in question. > > > > +1, besides which I'm not sure this needs to be elevated to the Board > > unless these groups can't come to an agreement/good answer themselves. > > This is a matter of legal issue which we can't seem to agree upon > since we don't know for sure if JPEG is "patent-free" format or it's > appropriate to use on Fedora Project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg#Potential_patent_issues Given the current state of affairs, I don't see a problem here. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- 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 Wed May 23 17:08:00 2007 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 13:08:00 -0400 Subject: Official Request: Image Standard for Fedora Project In-Reply-To: <369bce3b0705230054x144b3d87x391b71df14f2d034@mail.gmail.com> References: <369bce3b0705221654q7aa2414ej794f3fd8635e876b@mail.gmail.com> <20070523030244.GA29903@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1179889749.4990.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <369bce3b0705230054x144b3d87x391b71df14f2d034@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070523170759.GF6019@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Thomas Chung (tchung at fedoraproject.org) said: > >+1, besides which I'm not sure this needs to be elevated to the Board > >unless these groups can't come to an agreement/good answer themselves. > > This is a matter of legal issue which we can't seem to agree upon > since we don't know for sure if JPEG is "patent-free" format or it's > appropriate to use on Fedora Project. Run 'locate *.jpg' on a Fedora box. Bill From mspevack at redhat.com Wed May 23 19:09:39 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:09:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Official Request: Image Standard for Fedora Project In-Reply-To: <20070523170759.GF6019@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <369bce3b0705221654q7aa2414ej794f3fd8635e876b@mail.gmail.com> <20070523030244.GA29903@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1179889749.4990.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <369bce3b0705230054x144b3d87x391b71df14f2d034@mail.gmail.com> <20070523170759.GF6019@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 23 May 2007, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Thomas Chung (tchung at fedoraproject.org) said: >>> +1, besides which I'm not sure this needs to be elevated to the Board >>> unless these groups can't come to an agreement/good answer themselves. >> >> This is a matter of legal issue which we can't seem to agree upon >> since we don't know for sure if JPEG is "patent-free" format or it's >> appropriate to use on Fedora Project. > > Run 'locate *.jpg' on a Fedora box. If you want to make a JPG, make a JPG. If you want to make a PNG, make a PNG. The Fedora Board isn't going to mandate one or the other. --Max From kwade at redhat.com Thu May 24 08:13:54 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 01:13:54 -0700 Subject: summary of firstboot and EULA changes in Fedora 7 In-Reply-To: References: <200705180936.13005.jkeating@redhat.com> <1179847640.4378.21.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <1179994434.3439.775.camel@erato.phig.org> On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 11:37 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > On Tue, 22 May 2007, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 10:44 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > >> that if someone wants to know more specifics, we give them the location > >> of the full EULA. > >> > >> Which, by the way, is now on the wiki: > >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA > > > > Do we want to actually put this in a release specific path? The EULA > > does change from time to time and won't retroactively apply to older > > releases. So thinking ahead to that and having the URL appropriately > > versioned seems like a good idea... > > You're right. I can change it to a Fedora 7 EULA page, and we can use > #redirect to have /Licenses/EULA point to "current" For these "permanent" URLs, it is probably a good idea to start to rethink how we are defining them. I.e., "wiki" shouldn't be in the URL, and for now we should have an Apache rule that redirects fp.org/Foo to fp.org/wiki/Foo, unless /Foo otherwise exists. This is the consequence of trying to wedge the Wiki into CMS duties, it is harder to make URLs that always work. Anyway, point made here, and I should probably go tackle this on f-websites-l. We'll come to consensus and let ya'll know. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 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: