Bind v. TinyDNS

[Dave Roberts]

On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 14:36, Jos Vos wrote:
> No!  *I* and many others won't be happy.  Fedora Core should *only*
> include real free / Open Source software and nothing more.  The whole
> "situation" doesn't change at all when the author himself would
> provide the rpm's, if the conditions stay the same.

Hmmmm... so thank you for protecting me from myself. Or not.

I, personally, think that Fedora Core should include any packages that
the general community thinks ought to be included, possibly even closed
source if we can get the distribution rights to them. For instance, I
would really like a *GOOD* Java VM included right from the get-go, and
right now all the Open Source ones pretty much suck for anything serious
(that may change, but right now that is certainly the state of the
world). The fact that Sun, IBM, Blackdown, etc., are available but are
not included is a real shame. I'd also get the Flash plugin and whatever
else I could to deliver a full, usable system for lots of FC users.
There are things that would probably not be able to make the cut (MP3
support has some legal issues, for instance, and I certainly understand
wanting to stay away from it). I don't know, perhaps Anaconda needs a
"Pick your level of Open Source zealotry:" sort of screen prompt, with
packages tagged as to status and being installed according to the user's
wishes.

> You have the right to have your own opinion, of course, but be aware
> that a lot of people are firm supporters of free / Open Source
> software (and some of them - like myself - have written such software
> themselves) and will stay to refuse using DJB software - even for
> personal use - given the current conditions.

Now, this is certainly fair. I don't begrudge anybody their own desire
to use nothing but free software, but it really bugs me when somebody
starts telling me what's good for me. If you don't want to use any DJB
software, that's fine. I personally don't either, because I think there
are better alternatives that don't seem to suffer from the license
limitations of which you speak. But it certainly seems contrary to the
word "free" (as in speech) that you would want to limit everybody else's
choices because of your own beliefs.

-- 
Dave Roberts <ldave at droberts.com>