<p dir="ltr">I agree with this completely. Functional capability matters quite a lot and we seem to forget this a lot lately.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 21, 2014 7:35 AM, "Stephen Gallagher" <<a href="mailto:sgallagh@redhat.com">sgallagh@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA1<br>
<br>
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Fedora's Foundations: “Freedom,<br>
Friends, Features, First", particularly in relation to some very<br>
sticky questions about where certain things fit (such as third-party<br>
repositories, free and non-free web services, etc.)<br>
<br>
Many of these discussions get hung up on wildly different<br>
interpretations of what the "Freedom" Foundation means. First, I'll<br>
reproduce the exact text of the "Freedom" Foundation[1]:<br>
<br>
"Freedom represents dedication to free software and content. We<br>
believe that advancing software and content freedom is a central goal<br>
for the Fedora Project, and that we should accomplish that goal<br>
through the use of the software and content we promote. By including<br>
free alternatives to proprietary code and content, we can improve the<br>
overall state of free and open source software and content, and limit<br>
the effects of proprietary or patent encumbered code on the Project.<br>
Sometimes this goal prevents us from taking the easy way out by<br>
including proprietary or patent encumbered software in Fedora, or<br>
using those kinds of products in our other project work. But by<br>
concentrating on the free software and content we provide and promote,<br>
the end result is that we are able to provide: releases that are<br>
predictable and 100% legally redistributable for everyone; innovation<br>
in free and open source software that can equal or exceed closed<br>
source or proprietary solutions; and, a completely free project that<br>
anyone can emulate or copy in whole or in part for their own purposes."<br>
<br>
The language in this Foundation is sometimes dangerously unclear. For<br>
example, it pretty much explicitly forbids the use of non-free<br>
components in the creation of Fedora (sorry, folks: you can't use<br>
Photoshop to create your package icon!). At the same time, we<br>
regularly allow the packaging of software that can interoperate with<br>
non-free software; we allow Pidgin and other IM clients to talk to<br>
Google and AOL, we allow email clients to connect to Microsoft<br>
Exchange, etc. The real problem is that every time a question comes up<br>
against the Freedom Foundation, Fedora contributors diverge into two<br>
armed camps: the hard-liners who believe that Fedora should never<br>
under any circumstances work (interoperate) with proprietary services<br>
and the the folks who believe that such a hard-line approach is a path<br>
to irrelevance.<br>
<br>
To make things clear: I'm personally closer to the second camp than<br>
the first. In fact, in keeping with the subject of this email, I'd<br>
like to suggest a fifth Foundation, one to ultimately supersede all<br>
the rest: "Functional". Here's a straw-man phrasing of this proposal:<br>
<br>
Functional means that the Fedora community recognizes this to be the<br>
ultimate truth: the purpose of an operating system is to enable its<br>
users to accomplish the set of tasks they need to perform.<br>
<br>
With this in place, it would admittedly water down the Freedom<br>
Foundation slightly. "Freedom" would essentially be reduced to: the<br>
tools to reproduce the Fedora Build Environment and all packages<br>
(source and binary) shipped from this build system must use a<br>
compatible open-source license and not be patent-encumbered. Fedora<br>
would strive to always provide and promote open-source alternatives to<br>
existing (or emerging) proprietary technologies, but accepts that<br>
attracting users means not telling them that they must change all of<br>
their tools to do so).<br>
<br>
The "Functional" Foundation should be placed above the other four and<br>
be the goal-post that we measure decisions against: "If we make this<br>
change, are we reducing our users' ability to work with the software<br>
they want/need to?". Any time the answer to that question would be<br>
"yes", we have to recognize that this translates into lost users (or<br>
at the very least, users that are working around our intentions).<br>
<br>
Now, let me be further clear on this: I am not in any way advocating<br>
the use of closed-source software or services. I am not suggesting<br>
that we start carrying patent-encumbered software. I think it is<br>
absolutely the mission of Fedora to show people that FOSS is the<br>
better long-term solution. However, in my experience a person who is<br>
exposed to open source and allowed to migrate in their own time is one<br>
who is more likely to become a lifelong supporter. A person who is<br>
told "if you switch to Fedora, you must stop using Application X" is a<br>
person who is not running Fedora.<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations" target="_blank">https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations</a><br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
Version: GnuPG v1<br>
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - <a href="http://www.enigmail.net/" target="_blank">http://www.enigmail.net/</a><br>
<br>
iEYEARECAAYFAlNVEOcACgkQeiVVYja6o6OrwACfSp6sS7A4h7EDQ0AKnPcGFfCj<br>
GCEAn3R7U8U3PG3slTt4wRX0/GBsr8lJ<br>
=tFhY<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
--<br>
devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org">devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
<a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a><br>
Fedora Code of Conduct: <a href="http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct" target="_blank">http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct</a></blockquote></div>