[fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected]

[Rahul]

Hi,

I asked spot to help me with the license analysis to look at any 
potential non-free packages that we would have to lose by endorsing only 
Free software in our guidelines (as defined by FSF). Spot pointed out 
that FSF has described the original artistic license 
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense
) as ambiguous but David Turner from FSF didnt list any of the Perl 
packages as non-free. We require more clarification on this.


On a earlier discussion, it was pointed out that by Jeremy Katz that our 
guidelines 
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-adf31c383612aac313719f7b4f8167b7dcf245d2) 
allow inclusion on binary firmware when licensed in a appropriate 
manner. The advantage in including such firmware might be low since some 
major vendors do not allow redistributions without special agreements. 
So other than a few packages that Spot is looking into, this might be 
the only major issue we need to discuss further since disallowing a lot 
of firmware might limit our wireless networking capabilities. With 
laptop sales over taking desktops this is obviously a key issue we need 
to look into.

Rahul
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Tom 'spot' Callaway" <tcallawa at redhat.com>
Subject: Free software and Fedora: Dissected
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:13:17 -0500
Size: 12349
Url: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20060731/643494e9/attachment.mht