LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  1, 2007, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> 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 <a
  href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html"> free
  software</a> 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}