On 04/30/2009 01:09 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Now, you don't have to report anything back to the list or to
but please don't fail to do your job just because you can't stand me.
It's an important job, and the Fedora community counts on you to do it.
As to this specific point, separated out specifically, I will repeat
myself, perhaps a bit more clearly:
Please point out any _specific_ cases of license issues in Fedora
packages to me, bugzilla (FE-Legal), or this list, and I will look into
them. When you do so, it greatly aids me when you are able to:
* Specifically point out the precise issue
* Note the affected files and package
It took you several emails to accomplish this, and I just don't have
enough time to chase "ghost" issues where your personal stance on
licensing differs from Fedora's. I have a high degree of confidence at
this point that you understand the definitions of Fedora licensing policies.
When information is presented calmly, clearly, and without rhetoric, I
continue to look into it. To assert that I am either failing, or at risk
of failing in that task is rather insulting, especially given a lack of
evidence in that area.
It is also worth considering that the Linux kernel, like X.org and
texlive, is a rather special case. We cannot simply remove the entire
package without crippling the Fedora distributions, nor is it a place
where we can effectively "scalpel" out licensing issues (I know that you
disagree on this latter point, but for the purposes of rational
discussion, please simply accept that Fedora is not interested in taking
such action at this point in time). Our best recourse is to work with
the upstream to address these issues. Progress continues to be made in
Keep in mind that it took us YEARS to get X.org to a state where we were
no longer tangled up with non-free licenses. I tracked that issue
personally for 5 years, Debian tracked it for even longer than that. It
will likely take me months to finish simply auditing texlive.