LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 5/2/07, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> 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"