| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Fedora free?Fedora free?Posted Apr 12, 2007 10:54 UTC (Thu) by ldo (subscriber, #40946)Parent article: Blaming Fedora
If Fedora is 100% free, why did the FSF feel the need to create gNewSense?
(Log in to post comments)
Fedora free? Posted Apr 12, 2007 11:23 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] ha.
Because people's definitions of Free differ! Fedora Free isn't good enough for the FSF, the FSF want FSF Free.
That's what is nice about having multiple distributions. Different philosophies, different points of view.
Picking out a distribution is like finding a matching personality at a bar or something. What is a good match for me isn't going to be perfect for everybody.
Sounds like the guy complaining would be better off with something like Mephis or Linspire were they don't care about stuff like that. Unless of course the person doesn't care that much to switch distros. Then complaining is probably alright, as long as the forum the person choose is the correct place for that sort of stuff. (not being familar with Fedora mailing list drama and guidelines I can't realy tell.)
Fedora free? Posted Apr 12, 2007 12:29 UTC (Thu) by bcs (subscriber, #27943) [Link] Fedora is committed to being 100% free software, and they've recently made some incredible progress on that front. They've occasionally asked me to help evaluate licenses as part of this work. They haven't quite reached the goal yet—for example, they're still dealing with some of the tougher issues like binary firmware blobs in the kernel. But I'm personally optimistic about their continued progress. -- Brett Smith, FSF Licensing Compliance Engineer
Fedora free? Posted Apr 12, 2007 18:30 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
When I asked about FSF's position, RMS claimed that he is willing to ignore the issue of sourceless firmware within the kernel and FSF site already lists several distributions as Free even though they include such firmware
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis/FSF
So a FSF licensing compliance engineer pointing it out as a example of Fedora not reaching it's goal is puzzling. Meanwhile Fedora project is waiting on FSF to go through the OSI licenses that are important to Fedora as requested by RMS earlier and inform us whether they are considered Free software licenses or not.
If you are willing to speed up that process drop me a mail @fedoraproject.org
Fedora free? Posted Apr 13, 2007 15:46 UTC (Fri) by bcs (subscriber, #27943) [Link] Thanks for the message; I sent you e-mail.
Fedora free? Posted Apr 14, 2007 11:48 UTC (Sat) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] Now that is interesting! I wonder what, then, is the reason that the FSF will not endorse Debian in this day and age!
Fedora free? Posted Apr 14, 2007 18:26 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Debian hosts and supports a non-free repository while technically unofficial is part of Debian infrastructure and is maintained by Debian developers. FSF wants that to be separated out entirely and wants Debian to not promote and mention it anywhere.
That is my understanding of the conflict. While non-free firmware in the kernel is problematic RMS says he is willing to overlook for a limited time period as a practical compromise.
Fedora free? Posted Apr 24, 2007 8:12 UTC (Tue) by robbe (subscriber, #16131) [Link] > FSF wants that to be separated out entirely and wants Debian to not> promote and mention it anywhere.
Which would be ... interesting with a lot of GNU manuals now being in
Like another poster said, there are quite a few different definitions
|
|
||||||||||||