Fedora spin from RpmFusion

Douglas McClendon dmc.fedora at filteredperception.org
Sat Sep 29 02:33:25 UTC 2007

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Douglas McClendon wrote:
>> "
>> Please tell me how my above thoeretical repackaging of fedora does not 
>> fall into this *very* explicitly permitted scenario.
> The permissions listed was done IIRC to OEM's to do post install 
> modifications such as ship a optional repository of software. The 
> guidelines are a living document and written to state the Fedora 
> Project's position on various things. If they are exploited to do 
> things, Fedora Project does not endorse, they can and will be modified 
> to not permit those activities.
> IMO, modifying Fedora to offer Free software with patent restrictions or 

I don't think you fully understood what I was describing, or the
specific permissions involved.

I was not talking about modifying one single bit of fedora, but rather
packaging it with other software which fedora has no desire in auditing
either the quality, or legality of.

Likewise, the specific fedora legal guidelines I quoted, went to great
lengths to create this exception and definition of what constitutes
"non-modified fedora" and under what circumstances it is acceptable to
redistribute it.

Key Here- 'the fedora software', i.e. a 690M(fingers crossed) LiveOS iso
image with a specific sha1sum, remains intact and unmodified.  It is
merely distributed in combination on media with additional software,
fully adhering to the 4 conditions set forth in the legal guidelines.

Remember, those guidelines were put in place presumably so that OEMs
could ship software of any quality (i.e. maybe it eats half your hard
drive every other install), in a way that integrates that software with
fedora, but also in a way which keeps 'pure fedora' 'pure'.  Whether the
software addon is buggy crap that corrupts filesystems, or whether it is
not legal in some countries, is really beside the point of diluting or
poisoning the brand.  (or rather, again, the guidelines are what puts up
a firewall that is deemed acceptable for protecting the brand from _any_
arbitrarily 'bad' software/patches).



> non-free software is one of those things, Fedora does not want to 
> provide its brand towards for protecting the project goals as well as to 
> avoid legal liability. Maybe spot (CC'ed) can look into why these 
> permissions were provided in the first place.
> Rahul

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list