FE non free repo

[Hans de Goede]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 20:04 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>> Add a second repository, managed under the umbrella of FESCo, which
>>> can hold packages that violate the basic tenets of the Fedora project
>>> in some way (specifically those prohibiding sale for profit) but which
>>> still permit us the freedoms of redistribution, reuse of source,
>>> modification, and others necessary for the reasonable maintanence of
>>> the project.
>>>
>> Unfortunately Ralf doesn't take this offer by you seriously,
> Sorry, I did take this offer seriously, too seriously to be commented on
> in an add-hoc knee-jerk response

Thats very good to hear! If you're working on a proposal let me know if I can help.

>>  but I think
>> its a great idea and I couldn't have worded it better myself.
> Well, exactly this is the question: Which kind of SW should be allowed
> to go into such a repo?
> 
> I would define it by a simple negated definition: 
> "OSS packages which fit into Fedora's criteria, except that they do NOT
> fit into the OSI definition of "free SW"."
> 

I would define it as fits into Fedora's criteria except for a not for commercial
use / financial gain clause. Perhaps later we find some other software with
clauses which have a similar low impact on every day use by a large group of our
users (those users who do not wish to base a product of Fedora) and then we can
add those clauses to the exception list, but for now just having a repo which
allows this free except for no commercial use software would be a big step forward.

> 
>> There is quite a bit of software out there which gives one the all
>> important rights to look under the hood, to also muck under the hood
>> (not only look but also touch!) and even the right to redistribute the
>> result as long as its not for a profit.
>>
>> To me such software is for most everyday uses 99% as free as truely free
>> software and I think such a repo would be a welcome add-on to the Fedora
>> "space".
> Exactly - The same situation as I am facing. The Fedora/OSI definition
> of "free SW" doesn't match with my "personal notion of OSS" nor with the
> legal situation applicable to me, nor does it fit into my demands.
> 

Agreed, although I think that promoting 100% free software is important and
sometimes if politely asked authors are willing to drop such a no commercial
use clause. I've had several successes (and failures) asking todo so for
various games.

> To the contrary, Fedora's current policy forces packagers to
> functionally cripple/degrade packages in FE, because some components,
> some packages use underneath, do not fit into Fedora's current policy,
> or to refrain from packaging packages for Fedora. IMO, this is one main
> cause, why at least some 3rd party repos exist at all - In short:
> Fedora doesn't match their demands.
> 
> 
> If Fedora had a "non-free" repo, you'd probably see me wanting to move
> packages from FE to "non-free FE" or packages to appear in both repos
> (one "OSI-compliant"/"functionally crippled" variant in FE - and one
> "functionally extended variant" in "non-free FE").
> 

I wouldn't want to see packages moved unless the added functionality is
really big, and this cannot be easily fixed with using dlopen. (And yes I'm
willing to write a few dlopen patches where necessary).

Regards,

Hans