<div dir="ltr">Hi<br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Josh Boyer <span dir="ltr"></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Put another way, if we're going to make concessions and tell people<br>
how to get said software in our documentation, why would we not make<br>
those same concessions, with the same messaging, in our software where<br>
legally possible?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I understand it but a couple of wiki pages don't serve that case very well. I could setup a redirect now in a couple of minutes and the argument is lost. If you want to argue that point, the MUCH better example is proprietary firmware. <br>
<br><a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Binary_Firmware">https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Binary_Firmware</a><br>
<br>We clearly have made a concession there and you could argue that we are extending that concession to cover more types of non-free software. I don't necessarily agree but atleast it is a relatively strong argument compared to some random wiki pages.<br>
<br></div><div>Rahul<br></div></div></div></div></div>