FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement

[Rahul Sundaram]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 12, 2007, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> 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