Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[Les Mikesell]

Timothy Selivanow wrote:
> 
>> Not everything that fedora makes difficult is illegal.  Sun Java, for 
>> one example, the drivers provided by the vendors of the hardware users 
>> have chosen to purchase for another.
> 
> (doing my part to move the thread back to some-what on topic...)
> 
> It *used*to* be illegal to redistribute Java without Sun in the middle
> (still subject to interpretation).

And even then, there were ways to provide compatibility with RPM and the 
quirky alternatives system even though the user had to supply his own 
copy of the Sun code (the jpackage nosrc package...).  That wasn't so 
bad except for the jpackage repo being so generic that it took a while 
to find the right instructions for this week's fedora version.  Now, 
fedora has broken all relationships with this repository without 
supplying an alternative so you can spend all day trying to find the 
right instructions and still not succeed.  How can anyone believe that 
is the right way to treat users?

> That is until Java6, when Sun made
> the DLJ (https://jdk-distros.dev.java.net/developer.html) and made it
> retro-active for Java5.  That said, have you /read/ the DLJ?  It's not
> exactly a fertile ground for Fedora mission objectives.

I have no interest in distributing java.  I want to use it, and would 
probably use it under fedora if it wasn't next to impossible.

> There was also wording that sounded like you may not be able to break it
> into pieces (distribution is subject to the wording in the included
> README, from the FAQ Section 9: """it allows us to adjust the technical
> details of what constitutes the "Software" and what parts may be
> redistributed separately or omitted from a distribution without revising
> the license itself."""), even the way that JPackage does it.  JPackage
> is not subject to the DLJ because they are not a distro. Furthermore
> they provide nosrc RPMs which require users to still go through the Sun
> click-through... which satisfies Sun.
> 
> Doesn't sound very libre to me...

But it's _my_ freedom that I want to protect, not your political agenda. 
  Why should I be interested in a distribution that makes it difficult 
for me to make my own choices about whether a license is acceptable or 
not? I don't have a problem with downloading my own copy of any 
particular code from any particular place under any conditions that I 
find acceptable.  The problem is that fedora makes it exceptionally 
difficult to install and run java instead of the non-standard versions 
that it includes.

> Additionally, there are only *three* distros that have signed the DLJ:
> Debian, Ubuntu (Mark helped Sun draft the DLJ, BTW), and Gentoo.  RH has
> a separate agreement to "distribute" (essentially the drop-in RPMs that
> Sun provides) it with EL that is not subject to the DLJ.

And that's a good reason to use those distributions, along with the 
other user friendly things they have done.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com