Co-opt or illegally annex?

[Andy Green]

Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Olivier Galibert <galibert at pobox.com>:

>> When was it decided that computer farms, servers and remote
>> administration was unimportant, and only the desktop user was
>> interesting?  Is it official, or just de facto?
> 
> Heh. If most fedora-devel list members actually thought "only the
> desktop user was interesting", the thread about co-opting proprietary
> codecs would have gone rather differently.

Um.. what does "co-opting proprietary codecs" mean?  You either agree 
not to redistribute and pay up (like this:

http://www.linspire.com/lindows_products_details.php?product_id=11804

) or you use unlicensed contraband.  Maybe you should look at Linspire 
instead - seriously - so you can use their existing paid-for proprietary 
codecs to make the distro you think you want without geting legal 
trouble.  Fedora is by definition not up for that game.

> I conclude that most of this list doesn't think *any* class of users is
> interesting.

I think there is still a pretty strong membrane between folks inside 
RHAT and outside, I suppose this has to be to some extent.  It would 
have been nice to get a chance to argue the busybox case for RHAT's OLPC 
work which is happening off the public radar AFAICT.

> That's not an attitude that bodes well for the future.

This general FUD ignores that whatever RHAT's attitude it has certainly 
done fine and generous work in the past with no sign of it reducing in 
strength.

-Andy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4492 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060412/7b03adfb/attachment.bin>