Fedora/RH policies sometimes suck

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 4/9/07, linuxmaillists at charter.net <linuxmaillists at charter.net> wrote:
> On Monday 09 April 2007, Andy Green wrote:
> > linuxmaillists at charter.net wrote:
> > > No it has something to do with the function not being
> > > open source or something like that. It was on another
> > > mailing
> >
> > Patent threat from MSFT... see this FUD article from
> > 2004:
> >
> > ''OpenOffice: A legal Trojan horse--but for whom?''
> >
> > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513-5375070.html
> >
> > Don't blame Redhat for this, they are doing what they
> > have to do.  As you point out it's not so hard if you
> > want to install the stock version on top of the vast
> > amount of other packages and security updates Redhat are
> > giving us for free.
> >
> > -Andy
>
> I wasn't blaming any one I was just very frustrated to find
> out that some functionality that I could have used and will
> now was taken out of the version packaged with Fedora.

I have to say though, I find it curious that drag and drop auto
incrementing was holding up a project.

> It would be nice to know when Fedora strips functionality
> out of packages in the distro so we can make the choice to
> install the original package and not the Fedora stripped
> version.  I understand why they do it.  I also like to know
> about it so I can override them when I think I need too.
> That is my only issue.

Okay. Well I mean we all know it is done, we just don't keep track of
the specifics. I suppose that is what you're asking for.

> Now back to my original question does any one know where I
> can find information that shows what packages Fedora has
> stripped because of questionable legal issues?

The closest thing is the packaging guidlines, no specific list exist.
Stripping out such things isn't often possible, this is the first i've
heard of this.



-- 
Fedora Core 6 and proud