debian@herakles.homelinux.org wrote:
Craig White wrote:
Things like flash player, though free are not open source and are available in binary format only which creates an issue if distributed in conjunction with software that is GPL license.
Please, research this point and show is what the problem is.
I believe there is not problem distributing GPL and non-free software as part of the same collation.
The problem Red Hat has is that it cannot support flash, java and such. Red Hat got burned with CDE some years ago; I imagine this is a factor in its current attitude. Other vendors do distribute varying amounts of closed-source software.
Then there are patent issues as Rahul suggested with things like audio and video codecs/formats which could present a sticky wicket for a distribution.
I wonder how many Americans know what a sticky wicket is?
--
Cheers John
-- spambait 1aaaaaaa@computerdatasafe.com.au Z1aaaaaaa@computerdatasafe.com.au Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
do not reply off-list
See the thread on finding a replacement for pine and why pine isn't included with Fedora. The problem isn't so much one of distributing both open source and closed source so much as not distributing software that doesn't have a license that the Fedora packagers feel they can live with. This is usually worse for closed source but there are open source programs such as pine that don't meet the criteria.
I'm also guessing that there is a level of not wanting to include any software that might be legally encumbered that makes including closed source especially problematic. If nothing else, any such program that isn't freely redistributable means someone within the Fedora organization has to go off and research the license and possibly negotiate a means for including the closed source program in Fedora. I'm thinking the Fedora folks have better things to do with their time and there is nothing to stop any of us users from deciding we can individually live with somebody's closed source licensing terms.
Cheers, Dave
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 10:49 -0700, David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud) wrote:
debian@herakles.homelinux.org wrote:
Craig White wrote:
Things like flash player, though free are not open source and are available in binary format only which creates an issue if distributed in conjunction with software that is GPL license.
Please, research this point and show is what the problem is.
I believe there is not problem distributing GPL and non-free software as part of the same collation.
The problem Red Hat has is that it cannot support flash, java and such. Red Hat got burned with CDE some years ago; I imagine this is a factor in its current attitude. Other vendors do distribute varying amounts of closed-source software.
Then there are patent issues as Rahul suggested with things like audio and video codecs/formats which could present a sticky wicket for a distribution.
I wonder how many Americans know what a sticky wicket is?
See the thread on finding a replacement for pine and why pine isn't included with Fedora. The problem isn't so much one of distributing both open source and closed source so much as not distributing software that doesn't have a license that the Fedora packagers feel they can live with. This is usually worse for closed source but there are open source programs such as pine that don't meet the criteria.
I'm also guessing that there is a level of not wanting to include any software that might be legally encumbered that makes including closed source especially problematic. If nothing else, any such program that isn't freely redistributable means someone within the Fedora organization has to go off and research the license and possibly negotiate a means for including the closed source program in Fedora. I'm thinking the Fedora folks have better things to do with their time and there is nothing to stop any of us users from deciding we can individually live with somebody's closed source licensing terms.
A recent example of a snafu with licensing was mysql. When the license was revised (I believe it was GPLed) with the release of mysql version 4.X the older 3.23 version was all that was available in Fedora until the terms of the revised license and its effects on distribution were ironed out so that Fedora felt safe that they would not be subject to liability for the distribution.
The fact that something is GPLed or otherwise open source does not automatically rule out licensing issues.
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 23:06 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 10:49 -0700, David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud) wrote:
debian@herakles.homelinux.org wrote:
Craig White wrote:
Things like flash player, though free are not open source and are available in binary format only which creates an issue if distributed in conjunction with software that is GPL license.
Please, research this point and show is what the problem is.
I believe there is not problem distributing GPL and non-free software as part of the same collation.
The problem Red Hat has is that it cannot support flash, java and such. Red Hat got burned with CDE some years ago; I imagine this is a factor in its current attitude. Other vendors do distribute varying amounts of closed-source software.
Then there are patent issues as Rahul suggested with things like audio and video codecs/formats which could present a sticky wicket for a distribution.
I wonder how many Americans know what a sticky wicket is?
See the thread on finding a replacement for pine and why pine isn't included with Fedora. The problem isn't so much one of distributing both open source and closed source so much as not distributing software that doesn't have a license that the Fedora packagers feel they can live with. This is usually worse for closed source but there are open source programs such as pine that don't meet the criteria.
I'm also guessing that there is a level of not wanting to include any software that might be legally encumbered that makes including closed source especially problematic. If nothing else, any such program that isn't freely redistributable means someone within the Fedora organization has to go off and research the license and possibly negotiate a means for including the closed source program in Fedora. I'm thinking the Fedora folks have better things to do with their time and there is nothing to stop any of us users from deciding we can individually live with somebody's closed source licensing terms.
A recent example of a snafu with licensing was mysql. When the license was revised (I believe it was GPLed) with the release of mysql version 4.X the older 3.23 version was all that was available in Fedora until the terms of the revised license and its effects on distribution were ironed out so that Fedora felt safe that they would not be subject to liability for the distribution.
The fact that something is GPLed or otherwise open source does not automatically rule out licensing issues.
---- the mysql example doesn't exactly clarify much of anything but the actual issue is described here...
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5173014.html
Craig
-
Craig White -
David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud) -
Jeff Vian