Definition of Open Source [was Re: pine: UW permission to distribute]

[Aaron Bennett]

On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 10:25, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:02:29 +0200, Leonard den Ottolander
> <leonard at den.ottolander.nl> wrote:
> > What needs to be avoided is that such software is mixed with free
> > software in the repository.
> 
> I have a whole laundry list of policy questions regarding how to deal
> with non-free software.
> 
> What licensing terms are allowable in Core? Which are excluded based
> on informed legal
> opinion considering liability compared to being excluded based on policy?
> 
> What licensing terms are allowable in Extras? Which are excluded based
> on informed legal opinion considering liability compared to excluded
> based on policy?
> 
> Can Fedora host or maintain a non-free repository? Is it worth it or
> does it detract from the Core objectives?

This is a crucial question.  For example, there are about 10 external
repositories which contain useful stuff, like Dag, Freshrpms, ATrpms,
etc.

There's also livna.org, which contains packages built to the same QA
standards, naming schemes, etc as Fedora Extras.  

The problem is, it's a lot easier for a new users to find the rpms from
Dag, Freshrpms, ATrpms, etc then it is to find them from livna.org.  If
Fedora.redhat.com could link to livna.org, then new users would more
easily find a source of high-quality, QA'd, version-number-compatible,
etc packages.  This is not to disparage any of the other repositories,
their QA efforts, or naming schemes.  But I'd prefer that my users
install software which has been QA'd and which I know if
version-compatible, rather then find that they installed a ton of stuff
from freshrpms.net and dag and now are having major problems upgrading.

Anyhow, it's a legal issue.  First person with a .redhat.com email
address to respond wins. :-)