4:18 a.m.
On Monday, October 14, 2019 2:10:56 AM MST you wrote:
catanzaro commented on the pull-request: `Add a filtered flathub
remote`
that you are following: ``
John, I linked you to the section of the policy that describes what
third-party software would present unacceptable risk. I further explained
the intent of the filter is to hide software that we know would present
such risk. I do not believe Steam is a significant risk.
Since you have chosen not to accept the intention of the third-party
software policy, which is to make it easier for users to install certain
proprietary software not distributed by Fedora, I don't think further
discussion here will be productive. ``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-workstation-repositories/pull-requ
est/7
Has anyone taken a look at this to see if it's actually alright to have this
in Fedora? In my opinion, this presents a huge risk, especially as a package,
and the third party software policy doesn't seem to apply to this use case.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity
4:29 a.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
John, the third-party software policy was approved after a long and
contentious debate:
https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/121
We request review from Fedora Legal when we believe software may
present significant risk, such as the recent addition of OpenH264, in
accordance with the legal policy:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_policies#...
Michael
4:49 a.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Monday, October 14, 2019 2:29:49 AM MST mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org wrote:
John, the third-party software policy was approved after a long and
contentious debate:
https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/121
We request review from Fedora Legal when we believe software may
present significant risk, such as the recent addition of OpenH264, in
accordance with the legal policy:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_policies#Leg
al_requirements
Michael
I don't have a disagreement with the third-party software policy. However,
that policy does not include proprietary software. It's good that we can
reference external repositories such as rpmfusion-free, in my opinion.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity
8:12 a.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:49 AM, John M. Harris Jr
<johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
It's good that we can
reference external repositories such as rpmfusion-free, in my opinion.
We actually cannot do that. It is prohibited because it would entail
significant risk.
9:19 a.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Monday, October 14, 2019 6:12:18 AM MST mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:49 AM, John M. Harris Jr
<johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
> It's good that we can
> reference external repositories such as rpmfusion-free, in my opinion.
We actually cannot do that. It is prohibited because it would entail
significant risk.
And proprietary software, in your opinion, does not?
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity
9:52 a.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:19 PM, John M. Harris Jr
<johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
And proprietary software, in your opinion, does not?
The requirements for including proprietary software are spelled out
just two paragraphs above the section on legal requirements:
"""
Software not deemed "free" by Fedora standards, for instance Google
Chrome, would be labelled both "third party" and "nonfree" for not
conforming to Fedora's definition of free. Over time further labels may
be introduced to further inform users. For the Workstation edition,
this labelling will be clearly visible in GNOME Software, the primary
software installer for the desktop. For other editions and tools, the
maintainers of said installers would need to work with FESCo to decide
how to provide this labelling information in the relevant tools.
"""
It should be beyond doubt that proprietary software was considered when
writing the policy. Then we have one paragraph on "Principles," which
I'll skip. Then we have the legal requirements:
"""
Just as with any software hosted by Fedora, third party software must
not contain material that poses undue legal risk for the Fedora Project
or its sponsors. This includes, but is not limited to, software with
known patent issues, copyright issues or software tailored for
conducting illegal activities. The Fedora working groups will evaluate
if a proposed addition or provider poses a significant risk, and if in
doubt confer with Fedora Legal for advice.
"""
It only requires legal approval for software with known patent issues,
copyright issues, or software tailored for conducting illegal
activities (which means penetration testing tools).
The rules require that repos containing proprietary software not be
searchable by default, only upon opt-in user consent. Furthermore,
after consent, the installed repos are still disabled; they are used
only for metadata to present search results. A repo will only be
enabled once software from that repo is installed. The point of this
policy was to make it easier for users to install software like the
NVIDIA proprietary driver, Google Chrome, etc. It was a difficult
compromise between keeping Fedora itself fully free, but also making
sure users who want certain popular software don't feel like it would
be easier to just use other distros instead.
Steam has already been included since Fedora 28 [1].
Michael
[1] <https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/44>
1:04 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 07:19:02AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2019 6:12:18 AM MST mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:49 AM, John M. Harris Jr
>
> <johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
> > It's good that we can
> > reference external repositories such as rpmfusion-free, in my opinion.
>
> We actually cannot do that. It is prohibited because it would entail
> significant risk.
And proprietary software, in your opinion, does not?
Depends. The answer to that question lies in the differences between
how copyright and patent laws work.
1:16 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
* Debarshi Ray:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 07:19:02AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 6:12:18 AM MST mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:49 AM, John M. Harris Jr
> >
> > <johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
> > > It's good that we can
> > > reference external repositories such as rpmfusion-free, in my opinion.
> >
> > We actually cannot do that. It is prohibited because it would entail
> > significant risk.
>
> And proprietary software, in your opinion, does not?
Depends. The answer to that question lies in the differences between
how copyright and patent laws work.
But it leads to the strange situation that we can recommend to install
ffmpeg if it is bundled with some proprietary software, but cannot do so
if it is part of a free software repository.
Thanks,
Florian
12:09 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
Florian Weimer wrote:
But it leads to the strange situation that we can recommend to
install
ffmpeg if it is bundled with some proprietary software, but cannot do so
if it is part of a free software repository.
Considering that FFmpeg is LGPL-licensed, I think recommending proprietary
software that uses FFmpeg exposes us to significant legal risk, because, as
far as I can tell, the LGPL is incompatible with proprietary patent
licenses. So I do not see how that proprietary software can be complying at
the same time with the LGPL and the patent license.
Kevin Kofler
11:59 a.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 07:09:50PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> But it leads to the strange situation that we can recommend to
install
> ffmpeg if it is bundled with some proprietary software, but cannot do so
> if it is part of a free software repository.
Considering that FFmpeg is LGPL-licensed, I think recommending proprietary
software that uses FFmpeg exposes us to significant legal risk, because, as
far as I can tell, the LGPL is incompatible with proprietary patent
licenses. So I do not see how that proprietary software can be complying at
the same time with the LGPL and the patent license.
Let's please not speculate what may or may not expose us to risk.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
5:19 a.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org wrote:
John, the third-party software policy was approved after a long and
contentious debate:
https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/121
That policy is still completely at odds with the Fedora objectives.
Recommending proprietary software is entirely incompatible with the Freedom
goal and actively works against it. So this policy needs to be revisited to
exclude proprietary software or repealed entirely.
Kevin Kofler
noon
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On 10/14/19 6:19 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org wrote:
> John, the third-party software policy was approved after a long and
> contentious debate:
>
>
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpagure....
That policy is still completely at odds with the Fedora objectives.
Recommending proprietary software is entirely incompatible with the Freedom
goal and actively works against it. So this policy needs to be revisited to
exclude proprietary software or repealed entirely.
It's a difficult choice. My understanding is that Fedora does not
'recommend' proprietary software, but rather allows it to be found, in
response to people searching for it by either specific terms (package
name) or specific functionality.
Are you arguing that the only choice compatible with Fedora principles
is to ignore the existence of proprietary software? I think this would
be contrary to the interests of the users. Speaking for myself, when
people ask me about image editing software, I say that I recommend the
FOSS product GIMP, but that there is also an excellent proprietary
Photoshop. I am not comfortable just mentioning one to the exclusion of
the other.
I think the overall goal for FOSS software is to be technically
excellent and compete successfully with proprietary software. Ignoring
non-FOSS software is actually counterproductive to that goal.
12:05 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
There is a difference between ignoring proprietary software, and providing installation
methods for it in the distro. It is against the first of the Four Foundations, Freedom, to
include these repositories. It's one thing if the user seeks out the software and
installs it themselves, it's another if we're baiting them into installing
software that does not provide the four Essential Freedoms.
Not only that, but we can make no guarantee as to the state of these repos or the state of
the software, as it is proprietary. This is also a potential issue for Fedora Legal.
On October 15, 2019 5:00:37 PM UTC, Przemek Klosowski via devel
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 10/14/19 6:19 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org wrote:
>> John, the third-party software policy was approved after a long and
>> contentious debate:
>>
>>
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpagure....
> That policy is still completely at odds with the Fedora objectives.
> Recommending proprietary software is entirely incompatible with the
Freedom
> goal and actively works against it. So this policy needs to be
revisited to
> exclude proprietary software or repealed entirely.
>
It's a difficult choice. My understanding is that Fedora does not
'recommend' proprietary software, but rather allows it to be found, in
response to people searching for it by either specific terms (package
name) or specific functionality.
Are you arguing that the only choice compatible with Fedora principles
is to ignore the existence of proprietary software? I think this would
be contrary to the interests of the users. Speaking for myself, when
people ask me about image editing software, I say that I recommend the
FOSS product GIMP, but that there is also an excellent proprietary
Photoshop. I am not comfortable just mentioning one to the exclusion of
the other.
I think the overall goal for FOSS software is to be technically
excellent and compete successfully with proprietary software. Ignoring
non-FOSS software is actually counterproductive to that goal.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse my brevity.
1:39 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 05:05:51PM +0000, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
There is a difference between ignoring proprietary software, and
providing installation methods for it in the distro. It is against the first of the Four
Foundations, Freedom, to include these repositories. It's one thing if the user seeks
out the software and installs it themselves, it's another if we're baiting them
into installing software that does not provide the four Essential Freedoms.
Not only that, but we can make no guarantee as to the state of these repos or the state
of the software, as it is proprietary. This is also a potential issue for Fedora Legal.
As noted upthread, this policy was approved by the Fedora Council and
definitely passed through Fedora Legal.
I understand that some folks disagree, but I don't think re-litigating
it at this point is very productive unless there's some new information
that has come to light.
kevin
1:42 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:39:20 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 05:05:51PM +0000, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
> There is a difference between ignoring proprietary software, and providing
> installation methods for it in the distro. It is against the first of the
> Four Foundations, Freedom, to include these repositories. It's one thing
> if the user seeks out the software and installs it themselves, it's
> another if we're baiting them into installing software that does not
> provide the four Essential Freedoms.
>
> Not only that, but we can make no guarantee as to the state of these repos
> or the state of the software, as it is proprietary. This is also a
> potential issue for Fedora Legal.
As noted upthread, this policy was approved by the Fedora Council and
definitely passed through Fedora Legal.
I understand that some folks disagree, but I don't think re-litigating
it at this point is very productive unless there's some new information
that has come to light.
kevin
I can't see where recommending *proprietary* software was approved, only third
party software.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity
2:16 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:42:33AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:39:20 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 05:05:51PM +0000, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
> > There is a difference between ignoring proprietary software, and providing
> > installation methods for it in the distro. It is against the first of the
> > Four Foundations, Freedom, to include these repositories. It's one thing
> > if the user seeks out the software and installs it themselves, it's
> > another if we're baiting them into installing software that does not
> > provide the four Essential Freedoms.
> >
> > Not only that, but we can make no guarantee as to the state of these repos
> > or the state of the software, as it is proprietary. This is also a
> > potential issue for Fedora Legal.
> As noted upthread, this policy was approved by the Fedora Council and
> definitely passed through Fedora Legal.
>
> I understand that some folks disagree, but I don't think re-litigating
> it at this point is very productive unless there's some new information
> that has come to light.
>
> kevin
I can't see where recommending *proprietary* software was approved, only third
party software.
proprietary software is a subset of third party software right?
One of the early drivers of this discussion as I recall was chrome,
which is definitely a third party software that is also proprietary.
Anyhow, I guess if the workstation working group hasn't answered things
to your satisfaction, you're welcome to open a council ticket and ask
them to clarify.
kevin
5:19 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
One of the early drivers of this discussion as I recall was chrome,
which is definitely a third party software that is also proprietary.
And one where it is entirely pointless to install the proprietary version
because there is Chromium (i.e., the Free Software version) in the Fedora
repositories. (Or as an alternative, there is also Falkon, which uses
QtWebEngine, which is derived from Chromium code.)
Support for patent-encumbered codecs can be obtained from RPM Fusion free
(chromium-libs-media-freeworld), also as Free Software. (For Falkon, there
is qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld.)
Support for Flash and Widevine DRM can be obtained (for both Chromium and
QtWebEngine) by dropping the respective proprietary blob into the correct
location on the file system. Those will still be proprietary, but you do not
have to use the proprietary version of the entire browser for that. And I am
actually browsing the web just fine with Falkon without those blobs, though
of course there are sites requiring them.
By actively offering the proprietary Chrome to the users instead of
explaining the above, you are actually pointing them towards using
proprietary software instead of Free Software for no reason.
Kevin Kofler
9:01 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:19 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at>
wrote:
By actively offering the proprietary Chrome to the users instead of
explaining the above, you are actually pointing them towards using
proprietary software instead of Free Software for no reason.
I think you're probably right that people mainly want Chrome for the
multimedia support. But well, surely you are well aware that we'll
never be able to point to the rpmfusion codecs packages in any official
location. I know it's very frustrating, but the legal team is just
trying to protect Red Hat (and Fedora). It would be helpful to please
keep your argumentation within the realm of the legal constraints we
have to respect.
Michael
10:08 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 7:01:49 PM MST mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:19 AM, Kevin Kofler
<kevin.kofler(a)chello.at>
wrote:
> By actively offering the proprietary Chrome to the users instead of
> explaining the above, you are actually pointing them towards using
> proprietary software instead of Free Software for no reason.
I think you're probably right that people mainly want Chrome for the
multimedia support. But well, surely you are well aware that we'll
never be able to point to the rpmfusion codecs packages in any official
location. I know it's very frustrating, but the legal team is just
trying to protect Red Hat (and Fedora). It would be helpful to please
keep your argumentation within the realm of the legal constraints we
have to respect.
Michael
If we can't point to that, but *can* point to *proprietary software* "in any
official location", we're obviously doing something wrong. Protecting Fedora
is not achieved by recommending proprietary software.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity
7:26 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org wrote:
I think you're probably right that people mainly want Chrome for
the
multimedia support. But well, surely you are well aware that we'll
never be able to point to the rpmfusion codecs packages in any official
location. I know it's very frustrating, but the legal team is just
trying to protect Red Hat (and Fedora). It would be helpful to please
keep your argumentation within the realm of the legal constraints we
have to respect.
So leave the task of informing users to people who are able to tell them the
true story instead of misleadingly offering them only a proprietary
alternative because it is the only one your lawyers let you tell them about.
I shall also note that, according to the FSF statements about GPL/LGPL and
patents, any patent license Google may have obtained for Chrome is likely
incompatible with the LGPL license on the FFmpeg code they are using to
implement the patented codecs, which would imply that Chrome would
necessarily be in violation of either the patents or the FFmpeg copyright
license. We just have no way to tell which is the case because Google's
patent arrangements are obviously not public.
Kevin Kofler
5:44 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 12:16:06 PM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:42:33AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:39:20 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 05:05:51PM +0000, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
> > > There is a difference between ignoring proprietary software, and
> > > providing
> > > installation methods for it in the distro. It is against the first of
> > > the
> > > Four Foundations, Freedom, to include these repositories. It's one
> > > thing
> > > if the user seeks out the software and installs it themselves, it's
> > > another if we're baiting them into installing software that does not
> > > provide the four Essential Freedoms.
> > >
> > > Not only that, but we can make no guarantee as to the state of these
> > > repos
> > > or the state of the software, as it is proprietary. This is also a
> > > potential issue for Fedora Legal.
> >
> > As noted upthread, this policy was approved by the Fedora Council and
> > definitely passed through Fedora Legal.
> >
> > I understand that some folks disagree, but I don't think re-litigating
> > it at this point is very productive unless there's some new information
> > that has come to light.
> >
> > kevin
>
> I can't see where recommending *proprietary* software was approved, only
> third party software.
proprietary software is a subset of third party software right?
One of the early drivers of this discussion as I recall was chrome,
which is definitely a third party software that is also proprietary.
Anyhow, I guess if the workstation working group hasn't answered things
to your satisfaction, you're welcome to open a council ticket and ask
them to clarify.
kevin
Proprietary software is certainly a subset of third party software, however,
please read the Workstation group's own page about third party software.
According to that documentation, the Workstation group itself or FESCo is
meant to approve it before it is allowed, and it may require Fedora Legal
sign-off, as it may present considerable risk.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity
8:58 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:44 AM, John M. Harris Jr
<johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
Proprietary software is certainly a subset of third party software,
however,
please read the Workstation group's own page about third party
software.
According to that documentation, the Workstation group itself or
FESCo is
meant to approve it before it is allowed,
As previously mentioned in this thread, we already approved Steam for
F28.
and it may require Fedora Legal sign-off, as it may present
considerable risk.
This was also previously addressed earlier in this thread, where I
quoted the relevant portion of the policy in full. Please consider
previous replies in this thread before posting new ones.
Michael
10:09 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 6:58:07 PM MST mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:44 AM, John M. Harris Jr
<johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
> Proprietary software is certainly a subset of third party software,
> however,
> please read the Workstation group's own page about third party
> software.
> According to that documentation, the Workstation group itself or
> FESCo is
> meant to approve it before it is allowed,
As previously mentioned in this thread, we already approved Steam for
F28.
> and it may require Fedora Legal sign-off, as it may present
> considerable risk.
This was also previously addressed earlier in this thread, where I
quoted the relevant portion of the policy in full. Please consider
previous replies in this thread before posting new ones.
Michael
What you've just said is clearly not in line with what has been quoted,
otherwise I would not have written the response that I did. Please read the
content of my previous message.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity
10:59 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:44 AM, John M. Harris Jr
<johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
As previously mentioned in this thread, we already approved Steam for
F28.
This was also previously addressed earlier in this thread, where I
quoted the relevant portion of the policy in full. Please consider
previous replies in this thread before posting new ones.
Michael
Don't waste your time answering this troll, he isn't listening.
11:01 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 8:59:18 PM MST Leigh Scott wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:44 AM, John M. Harris Jr
> <johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
>
> As previously mentioned in this thread, we already approved Steam for
> F28.
>
>
> This was also previously addressed earlier in this thread, where I
> quoted the relevant portion of the policy in full. Please consider
> previous replies in this thread before posting new ones.
>
> Michael
Don't waste your time answering this troll, he isn't listening.
I am not a troll, and I definitely am listening. I read the third party
software guidelines very carefully, on both the FESCo page, and the
Workstation Group's page.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity
1:20 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 09:01:31PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> Don't waste your time answering this troll, he isn't
listening.
I am not a troll, and I definitely am listening. I read the third party
software guidelines very carefully, on both the FESCo page, and the
Workstation Group's page.
Yes; Leigh, let's please refrain from name calling. I often disagree with
John, but I don't think he's acting in bad faith here (or in Fedora in
general).
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
2:10 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 09:01:31PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
Yes; Leigh, let's please refrain from name calling. I often disagree with
John, but I don't think he's acting in bad faith here (or in Fedora in
general).
Did I manage to earn another misconduct badge for that? ;-)
2:12 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:10:11PM -0000, Leigh Scott wrote:
> Yes; Leigh, let's please refrain from name calling. I often
disagree with
> John, but I don't think he's acting in bad faith here (or in Fedora in
> general).
Did I manage to earn another misconduct badge for that? ;-)
I hope there's no badges. :)
As the Code of Conduct says, "Don’t forget that it is human to err ..."
I appreciate your on-list apology!
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
2:07 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 8:59:18 PM MST Leigh Scott wrote:
I am not a troll, and I definitely am listening. I read the third party
software guidelines very carefully, on both the FESCo page, and the
Workstation Group's page.
Sorry for mislabeling you :-)
Fedora only provides the repo's to install some limited thirdparty apps, these are
disabled by default.
There aren't any usable replacements the nvidia driver or steam packages.
1:06 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On 10/15/19 10:59 PM, Leigh Scott wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:44 AM, John M. Harris Jr
> <johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
>
> As previously mentioned in this thread, we already approved Steam for
> F28.
>
>
> This was also previously addressed earlier in this thread, where I
> quoted the relevant portion of the policy in full. Please consider
> previous replies in this thread before posting new ones.
>
> Michael
Don't waste your time answering this troll, he isn't listening.
This is gold. Red Hat and Fedora will happily enforce a ridiculous Code
of Conduct on non Red Hat and Fedora members but Red Hat and Fedora
contributors will readily engage in name calling, harassment, and
intimidation both on and off the mailing lists.
It's almost like Code of Conducts are only put into place to silence
others that you don't agree with. Funny that.
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
1:19 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:06:50PM -0500, Ty Young wrote:
This is gold. Red Hat and Fedora will happily enforce a ridiculous
Code of Conduct on non Red Hat and Fedora members but Red Hat and
Fedora contributors will readily engage in name calling, harassment,
and intimidation both on and off the mailing lists.
No; name calling, harassment, and intimidation are not welcome or allowed.
I'm not sure what other incidents you're referring to, and I'm directly
opposed to the suggestion that our code of conduct is "ridiculous", but it
doesn't really matter: the negative behaviors you note are full-stop
unwelcome. If you have a code of conduct issue to raise, please follow the
process outlined at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
.
All such reports _are_ dealt with, with considerable thought and effort.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
1:33 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 01:00:37PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote:
It's a difficult choice. My understanding is that Fedora does
not
'recommend' proprietary software, but rather allows it to be found,
in response to people searching for it by either specific terms
(package name) or specific functionality.
Yes. We talked about this at length on the Fedora Council -- and on the
Board before that. There's basically a big philosophical question about the
right response and what benefits free software (and Fedora) best overall. If
someone needs Chrome for their job (and it is sadly the case that Chromium
does not always suffice), do we do better by saying "okay, here's how you
can get that easily" or by saying "sorry, go somewhere else"?
This isn't a settled question in Fedora, and it's one that people feel very
passionate about in both sides. In the end, we decided that allowing the
experiment was worthwhile _as a means to the eventual end_. This is why
there's a section about free and open source software in the third party
policy, and why it includes the line "Wherever available, free and open
source alternatives are listed and users are encouraged to prefer these to
their restricted counterparts."
You can see some of the history of all of this here:
https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/57
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
1:54 p.m.
New subject: Recommending proprietary software in Fedora
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 02:33:41PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
This isn't a settled question in Fedora, and it's one that
people feel very
passionate about in both sides. In the end, we decided that allowing the
experiment was worthwhile _as a means to the eventual end_. This is why
there's a section about free and open source software in the third party
policy, and why it includes the line "Wherever available, free and open
source alternatives are listed and users are encouraged to prefer these to
their restricted counterparts."
... and this should go without saying but it doesn't hurt to say it: Fedora
is always going to be a free and open source software project, and we're not
producing a distribution which includes proprietary software (with the
exception of the firmware exception we've had for basically forever).
Nothing around that is changing and I can't imagine it changing.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
1683
days inactive
1692
days old
32 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Debarshi Ray -
Florian Weimer -
John M. Harris Jr -
John M. Harris, Jr.
-
Kevin Fenzi -
Kevin Kofler -
Leigh Scott -
Matthew Miller -
mcatanzaro＠gnome.org -
Przemek Klosowski -
Ty Young