[Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 12:58 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:02 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > > > > > "SG" == Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> writes:
> > > SG> If they can't get that software from Fedora, they *will* get
> > > it
> > > from
> > > SG> another source (or use a different OS that doesn't get in
> > > their
> > > SG> way).
> > > 
> > > Exactly.  Let's ship binary drivers.
> > > 
> > > I know that's something of a straw man, but my point is that we
> > > must
> > > have some principles, and must work with upstreams to attempt to
> > > get
> > > them to at least understand those principles.  And we shouldn't
> > > give
> > > up
> > > on that just because someone wants some program which is easily
> > > provided
> > > by a copr anyway.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Binary drivers are a different problem. We don't ship those because
> > there are *legal* concerns preventing it.
> 
> Kernel modules are kind of a grey area because there are differing
> opinions on their legality in re the GPL, but in general terms, it's
> not correct to say we don't include non-free software for *legal*
> reasons. There are plenty of non-free-but-legally-redistributable
> things, e.g. Flash. We have always been clear that we disallow non-
> free software unconditionally for *philosophical*, not *legal*,
> reasons.


You are correct. Thank you for the clarification. I think my original
point stands (that it isn't a fair comparison to the bundling problem).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150910/ff238ed2/attachment.sig>