Definition of Open Source [was Re: pine: UW permission to distribute]
Michael Tiemann
tiemann at redhat.com
Fri Jul 23 19:04:47 UTC 2004
On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 14:50, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Michael Tiemann (tiemann at redhat.com) said:
> > * Source and License. Is source code included with the package? If
> > not, does the package need and deserve a "binary-only exception"? If
> > source is available with the package, is the license governing the
> > entire package open source (i.e., OSD-compliant)? If so, is it also
> > free software? [Meets OSS and/or Free Software criteria for Fedora]
>
> Well, the overarching definition of Core and Extras as originally
> defined was that there were *no* binary exceptions.
Yup--and you're welcome. But those are only two collections. If the
policy is /all/ collections, that would be good to codify.
Most of the remaining comments appear to clarify rather than repudiate
what I said, so I'll incorporate the clarification.
The one question I cannot quite resolve is: if there's a binary-only
driver, say an nVidia driver, can there be a Fedora Addon collection
that includes said driver? Or must the driver be naked--packaged for,
but never distributed as part of, Fedora XYZ?
M
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list