On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:21:41 -0300
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I didn't mean to start the discussion here. Is this normal
procedure?
Sure. Any email is open for discussion.
On May 21, 2008, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:20:39 -0300
> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 2008, Brian Pepple <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>
>> > You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to
>> > this mail and I'll add it to the schedule.
>>
>> Given that FreedomĀ² is a major fedora feature, I'd like to discuss
>> enabling the creation of Fedora spins containing exclusively Free
>> Software. These are related sub-topics:
>>
>> . Permission to distribute under the mark 'Fedora' spins containing
>> kernel-libre packages, whose sole difference from identically-numbered
>> Fedora kernel builds is the removal of a few pieces of non-Free
>> Software.
> All spins must be composed of packages that are contained within the
> Fedora repositories. kernel-libre does not fit that category (today).
IOW, you oppose the idea of making an exception to enable people to
distribute spins of Fedora with the FreedomĀ² feature in it?
Yes.
>> . Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of
the
>> kernel-libre package, a 100% Free Software variant of the kernel
>> Linux, that I've been maintaining tracking Fedora kernel builds at
>>
http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/linux-libre/
> We've had this discussion. We aren't going to allow a forked kernel
> package.
We're talking about a different package here. This is not a fork.
Call it a branch if you must label it to achieve the purpose of
denying freedom to Fedora users.
Ok, then I'll call it an alternate kernel package. Which we still
aren't going to allow.
> Please work with the kernel team to integrate this into the
> main kernel package.
I believe I've already explained why I can't do that. I refuse to
distribute non-Free Software, and posting a patch that removes these
bits amounts to posting those very bits.
So work with upstream to get them removed or pushed to separate
firmware packages.
Now, how about *you* work with the Fedora team to provide Fedora
users
with one of its advertised features? I wouldn't mind if you took the
xdelta or the tarball or the srpm I created, that provides Fedora
users with freedom, and took it upstream. But both of us know
upstream doesn't want that and doesn't care about the freedom that
Fedora claims to care about. How do we get out of this conundrum?
Given your preference to not work in a manner which would be compatible
with Fedora Engineering practices, I'm not sure there is a way out.
However perhaps you can enlist some help from someone that would be
willing to do that.
Admit that Fedora is not about Freedom, such that I move on and stop
trying to achieve the stated goal, or actually work to at least enable
users to enjoy this stated goal?
I think that's hyperbole. I also think the firmware rules we have in
place are fair and beneficial for most users.
I have no problems with you working towards your goal. As I said
before, I commend it. However doing that with an alternative kernel
package isn't something that sits well.
>> . Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of
a
>> fedora-freedom "virtual" package, that Requires: linux-libre and
>> Conflicts: with any Fedora package known to contain software (firmware
>> included) that does not respect the 4 freedoms established in the Free
>> Software definition. AFAIK these would pretty much amount to the
>> standard non-Free kernel and a bunch of *-firmware packages, but there
>> could be sub-packages to cover other debatable packages with obscure
>> source code, dubious licensing policies, etc.
> You don't need a package. Make a comps group.
One of us is missing something. How would a comps group prevent the
accidental installation of say non-Free kernel or firmware packages
brought in through unintended dependencies, for a user who wants to
make sure no such software is installed, for example?
Fine, a fair point. Create a Free spin via a kickstart file. Having
that virtual package is more pain to maintain than a ks file and sort
of goes against how we tend to do things.
> I think we can certainly discuss it. However I believe the
biggest
> hurdle to what you propose is the extra kernel-libre package.
I suppose you're talking about disk space. I sympathize with that,
Hardly. I'm talking about having any alternate kernel, period.
> Your overall proposal hinges on that, and the way you've
stated you
> would like to provide it has been frowned upon quite a bit.
And largely misunderstood while at that. Not by everyone who objected
to it, for sure.
I don't think there's been a large misunderstanding. Simply two
differing opinions on the matter.
josh