[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora's FLOSS prociples (was: coverity code checker in Extras)



On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 21:57 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:29:36PM -0400, Max Spevack wrote:
> > + It's not open source, but there is no free alternative that can do the 
> > same thing.
> 
> I don't want to spoil anything and I'm not the activest FLOSS
> agitators, but I see a conflict of goals and tools.
> 
> The kernel-uses-bitkeeper-technology created more noise than it served
> good and bitkeeper was closer to open source than coverity while Linus
> was less pondering on FLOSS principles than the Fedora goals do, so
> projecting that to the future I see endless threads about the
> pure-FLOSS Linux using non-FLOSS tools.
> 
> There is an argument often brought up in these situations which goes
> like "since no FLOSS alternative exists, we need to use that". But the
> same is true about ipw* firmwares/closed source daemons, closed source
> 3D graphics and so on. There is even discussion of not allowing
> external kernel modules, even fully FLOSSed ones, in Fedora to
> demonstrate Fedora's embracement and loyality to FLOSS.

Not quite.  Yes, Fedora's mantra is upstream in regards to kernel
modules simply because it benefits everyone in the long run.   But the
current issue stems from maintenance in the long run and resource issues
for the Core kernel devs.  Please don't confuse that with FLOSS
zealotry.

> 
> If we want to open the backdoor to non-FLOSS bits we will be blamed on
> being selective and non-open ourselves serving only our needs at hand.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, as I said I'm no FLOSS die-hard agitator, and I
> would personally welcome a code checker. But it does conflict with
> Fedora's manifesto and will create a flood of noise and bad marketing.

There are two major items you're ignoring.

1) Coverity is not required by any means.  Your bitkeeper analogy is
flawed because it was the _only_ SCM tool being used for the kernel.  It
was essentially a gate.

2) Fedora isn't shipping coverity.  It doesn't taint the distribution in
any way.

josh


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]