Bind v. TinyDNS

[Rodolfo J. Paiz]

At 21:59 1/4/2004, you wrote:
>I guess I should just say that
>I disagree with you and that I believe the Fedora community should open
>the door to packages with licenses that you would deem objectionable,
>including "closed source" licenses that Fedora could actually get the
>rights to redistribute [...]
>In short, more functionality, less philosophy.

Whew. Lots of stuff here, of a perfectly valid philosophical bent, and 
unfortunately I do not have anywhere near the time I would need in order to 
participate properly in this discussion. Let me just throw out a couple of 
thoughts, though...

         1. This is not just a philosophical discussion; to a large extent 
it is a practical one. A large part of the Fedora developers and a big part 
of the sponsorship and resources and dedication come from Red Hat, Inc. As 
they have done for a number of years, they seek to foster the growth and 
development of Free (when I capitalize it, it means "with freedom" rather 
than "without cost") software, since Red Hat Linux, Fedora Linux, and Red 
Hat Enterprise Linux all needed or need to draw in one way or another on 
that development for future tools. Using proprietary or closed software is, 
to them, being given a fish rather than learning to fish.

         2. Red Hat (and now Fedora) have put forth huge efforts to help 
standardize and simplify software for Linux. Software which refuses to 
allow modification of installation paths, for example, works against that 
standardization.

         3. They seek to have patches supplied and integrated quickly and 
reliably, and rely in part on the Open Source philosophy to put lots of 
eyeballs in front of every piece of code hoping to make the code both more 
reliable and more trustworthy. Software which does not permit someone else 
to submit or integrate patches which result in new, released versions works 
against that mechanism of support for users.

         4. Resources are short enough for everyone as it is. When you 
include a closed-source package on a distro, then you face the prospect of 
bugs in that package (inevitable in all packages) raising Cain with the 
functionality and stability of other components of your system, but not 
being able to debug (and therefore support) them. The result is a higher 
cost in resources for a lower return on that investment.

         5. In some cases, software makers simply will not allow the 
redistribution under terms which make Fedora's very "business model" 
possible. DJB is one example, MySQL 4.x is another... for various reasons, 
people chose to license or publish their software under philosophical terms 
which cannot coexist with Fedora's. Others do so under terms which would 
allow Fedora to include them, but which would not allow Red Hat Enterprise 
Linux to include them. This is less important but still has a significant 
impact, given that Fedora does represent the technology and stability 
feeder for RHEL and thus justifies some of the $X Red Hat spends per month 
on development, bandwidth, and other resources for Fedora.

         6. Philosophically, even if some Free packages are less mature 
than their proprietary equivalents, including the Free packages in the 
distro exposes them to a great deal of use, therefore testing, therefore 
usually interest, therefore usually development. This helps push those Free 
packages forward and sometimes (ref ATI) convince manufacturers to 
open-source their software or drivers for everyone's benefit.

These points do not intend or attempt to be all-inclusive, carved in stone, 
or anything else. They are merely thoughts which suggest that Fedora's 
objectives have both philosophical and practical grounds and purpose, and 
why I find those to be a positive thing.


-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz at simpaticus.com
http://www.simpaticus.com