Fedora spin from RpmFusion

Douglas McClendon dmc.fedora at filteredperception.org
Sat Sep 29 02:59:55 UTC 2007

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Douglas McClendon wrote:
>> 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 meant modification is a broader sense and not just patching some 
> specific software. At any rate, the guidelines must reflect project 
> goals and not vice versa.  What you want to do IMO definitely falls 
> outside the scope of the project and must not retain the Fedora name. 
> Now it is upto to Fedora Project Board and Red Hat legal to determine 
> what's acceptable. Let's leave it at that.

I think you are trying to control things that are beyond the scope of 
the project.  I was not advocating any action on the part of the fedora 
project, I was merely describing what I believed to be legally allowable 
for any individual to do, in a manner completely detached from the 
fedora project.

Believe me, if this was something I wanted to personally do, I'd have 
done it, and not bothered discussing it here.

Certainly it is up the Board and RHLegal to modify existing published 
documents as they see fit.  But I am trying to persuade _you_ Rahul.

I'm trying to persuade you that these permissions are a good thing, and 
you needn't and shouldn't lobby for them to change to 'protect fedora'. 
  I think the guidelines as they stand were well thought out in the 
first place, with the intent of 'protecting fedora', and that changing 
them will serve no useful purpose, other than demonstrating that the 
fedora project has some control issues on par with GPLv3 (yes, I'm 
trying to be both serious and humorous as the same time ;)

Please, just accept that what I described is a perfectly valid 
*use*(!=modification) of fedora, and that the fedora project gains 
nothing by changing its well laid foundations to prevent further similar 
*uses* of fedora in the future.



More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list