LWN: Comments on "Blaming Fedora"

Blaming Fedora

bdw — 2007-04-25T17:51:31+00:00

One thing that Fedora could implement is a way to quickly install non-free components for multimedia, driver firmware, etc. similar to what Ubuntu has in 7.04 so newbies can quickly install the non-free codecs in a minimum number of mouse clicks.

Hopefully, with FC7, something like it will be available.

Fedora free?

robbe — 2007-04-24T08:12:44+00:00

> 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
there (due to the invariant sections).

Like another poster said, there are quite a few different definitions
of "free".

Blaming Fedora

robbe — 2007-04-24T08:07:47+00:00

> Perhaps the project is not doing an adequate job of communicating what
> it is trying to do.

This will probably not help as long as Fedora is the "default" Linux
distribution (at least in the US) and a lot of people pick it without an
informed decision. They won't read your "WARNING: 100% free software,
this means no mp3s, dude!" sticker/webpage/click-through/whatever...

Blaming Fedora

Tr0n — 2007-04-22T00:47:40+00:00

These are the people who do annoy me.

Instead of seeing that it isn't included, and going to the original site to build his own - he /blames/ fedora?

I can understand a query, concerning /why/ the feature isn't available, and questions on how to get it back (whether that means building, getting binaries, getting plugins, etc). But total ignorance is what annoys me.

I use fedora, and I'm glad I do - even if I don't find their political veiws of my taste. If I want codecs, binary drivers, or other closed-source items, I get them and integrate them into my system of choice, because it is my system of choice and I am comfortable with the fact I need to go and get that functionality.

If that user can't be bothered to read a main webpage or two concerning the 'free'-ness of fedora, then he deserves to be stung (as I can't count the number of times I've been informed of fedora's goal).

Blaming Fedora

wcooley — 2007-04-14T22:35:38+00:00

It's amazing how tempers can flare over such things. I can certainly understand and appreciate the ideological and legal motivations--and repeatedly explain such things to other people--but that doesn't mean I don't find it frustrating at times.

One might expect that such alterations could be found in the release notes.

Fedora free?

rahulsundaram — 2007-04-14T18:26:06+00:00

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.

list of patches

scottt — 2007-04-14T13:32:13+00:00

The list of patches is available from the source rpm:
rpmquery -pl coreutils-5.97-12.3.fc6.src.rpm
...
coreutils-4.5.3-langinfo.patch
coreutils-4.5.3-sysinfo.patch
....

I often just use the viewvc interface to peak at their CVS contents:
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/

Fedora free?

cortana — 2007-04-14T11:48:53+00:00

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?

bcs — 2007-04-13T15:46:16+00:00

Thanks for the message; I sent you e-mail.

Fedora free?

rahulsundaram — 2007-04-12T18:30:28+00:00

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

Tetris

smoogen — 2007-04-12T18:12:14+00:00

I am guessing time and effort. There are only so many hours in the day, and the guy who handles emacs also has 20-30 other packages he has on his plate.

Tetris

RobSeace — 2007-04-12T17:17:08+00:00

So, instead of pulling it entirely, why not simply rename it yourselves??
Just curious, honestly; not trying to be confrontational... But, it just
seems like if you are willing to rip out a feature, there should be no qualms
against renaming it instead, if its name is all that is problematic to you...
(I really don't care about this particular issue one way or the other; I'm on
the vi side of the religious war... ;-) But, the more general meta-issue is
what interests me...)

Tetris

spot — 2007-04-12T15:13:08+00:00

In fact, the trademark issues were the only reason we pulled the tetris code from Emacs. You can't make a game and call it "Tetris", thats violating trademark. Now, if they called it "GNU Happy Fun Block Game" or "GNUBlocks" or anything not resembling the "Tetris" trademark, we'd be good.

Fedora free?

bcs — 2007-04-12T12:29:57+00:00

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?

drag — 2007-04-12T11:23:41+00:00

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.)

Tetris

ldo — 2007-04-12T10:57:45+00:00

Inclusion of the Tetris game could be liable to violations of trademark (on the name) and patent (on the gameplay), at least in the US.

Fedora free?

ldo — 2007-04-12T10:54:24+00:00

If Fedora is 100% free, why did the FSF feel the need to create gNewSense?

Blaming Fedora

nim-nim — 2007-04-12T06:16:23+00:00

This article pushes the Red Hat angle too much.

One must understand many of the core Fedora developers are dedicated to Free Software. Fedora would probably strip non-free stuff even without direct Red Hat involvment.

And yes projects like OO.o would save themselves and their users grief by checking their dependencies licensing before blindly implementing stuff.

BTS

joey — 2007-04-12T03:36:41+00:00

This problem isn't exactly unique to Fedora (says the Debian developer. :-)

For clued in users, the best thing to do is check the BTS and if the issue isn't documented, file a bug. It's a legitimate bug report if OOo is missing $FEATURE due to nonfree code having been removed. Maybe the bug can't be fixed without reimplementing some code. It's a legitimate (wishlist) bug report if emacs is missing tetris.

Even if these bugs never get fixed, having them in the BTS provides a place to document why not, avoids repeat bugs from clued in users, provides an easy place to point non-clued users at when they complain, and provides an quick overview of such issues that clued in users can look over before using a peice of software.

Blaming Fedora

mattdm — 2007-04-12T03:03:56+00:00

If only we had a cartoon parrot mascot. That'd clear things up.

Blaming Fedora

mrons — 2007-04-12T02:11:11+00:00

I think something Fedora could do better is to provide an easy way of telling their users what and how packages have been modified from upstream.

Doing an "rpm -q --changelog" often tells us about some patches that have been applied, but it's not the whole story.

Perhaps "rpm -qi" should provide a brief summary of any modifications from upstream?

Delete is your friend

proski — 2007-04-12T02:05:20+00:00

Whoever started the thread didn't even provide his or her name or even a unique nickname. "linuxmaillists" is apparently an address created for specific mailing lists. Besides, the original post contained blames and no specific details about the problem.

When I see such posts I usually press "Delete" immediately. Such posts are not even worth the space on my hard drive. And they can ruin a whole day if taken seriously.

As the free software attracts more users, we are going to see more antisocial types in the mailing lists. It's important to learn how to deal with them without spending too much effort. They want attention. Don't give them what they want, it will only incite them further.

There are always better posts waiting for answers.