Why questions don't get answered, or "No, I've already RTFM, tell me the answer!"

[Craig White]

On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 23:06 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 10:49 -0700, David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)
> wrote:
> > debian at herakles.homelinux.org wrote:
> > 
> > > Craig White wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> Things like flash player, though free are not open source and are
> > >> available in binary format only which creates an issue if distributed in
> > >> conjunction with software that is GPL license.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please, research this point and show is what the problem is.
> > >
> > > I believe there is not problem distributing GPL and non-free software 
> > > as part of the same collation.
> > >
> > > The problem Red Hat has is that it cannot support flash, java and 
> > > such. Red Hat got burned with CDE some years ago; I imagine this is a 
> > > factor in its current attitude. Other vendors do distribute varying 
> > > amounts of closed-source software.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Then there are patent issues as Rahul suggested with things like audio
> > >> and video codecs/formats which could present a sticky wicket for a
> > >> distribution.
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder how many Americans know what a sticky wicket is?
> > >
> 
> > >
> > See the thread on finding a replacement for pine and why pine isn't 
> > included with Fedora.  The problem isn't so much one of distributing 
> > both open source and closed source so much as not distributing software 
> > that doesn't have a license that the Fedora packagers feel they can live 
> > with.  This is usually worse for closed source but there are open source 
> > programs such as pine that don't meet the criteria.
> > 
> > I'm also guessing that there is a level of not wanting to include any 
> > software that might be legally encumbered that makes including closed 
> > source especially problematic.  If nothing else, any such program that 
> > isn't freely redistributable means someone within the Fedora 
> > organization has to go off and research the license and possibly 
> > negotiate a means for including the closed source program in Fedora.  
> > I'm thinking the Fedora folks have better things to do with their time 
> > and there is nothing to stop any of us users from deciding we can 
> > individually live with somebody's closed source licensing terms.
> > 
> 
> A recent example of a snafu with licensing was mysql.  When the license
> was revised (I believe it was GPLed) with the release of mysql version
> 4.X the older 3.23 version was all that was available in Fedora until
> the terms of the revised license and its effects on distribution were
> ironed out so that Fedora felt safe that they would not be subject to
> liability for the distribution. 
> 
> The fact that something is GPLed or otherwise open source does not
> automatically rule out licensing issues.
----
the mysql example doesn't exactly clarify much of anything but the
actual issue is described here...

http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5173014.html

Craig