supporting closed source operating systems?

[Matt Domsch]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:48:38PM -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 19:30 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > I think this is a rephrasing of Jeff's brigth line that he seeks to
> > draw and wants to know what it will include and what not.
> 
> Thanks for this post, for me it did a good job of separating the
> technical from $other considerations.
> 
> The Fedora brand is a Linux brand.  It makes sense to have some
> Microsoft Windows stuff where it supports that story, such as tools to
> assist migration ... to Linux.  The libvirt pieces seem, to me, to be a
> good enough fit and belong on this side of the bright line.
> 
> But we need to make it clear that we are not going to morph Fedora into
> being some super-meta-FLOSS thing.  So, to me, the productivity apps
> belong on the other side of the bright line.  If we want to be involved
> in helping people switch from Microsoft Windows by supporting
> productivity FLOSS stacks that runs on that OS, it should be under a
> brand other than Fedora.  Such as "Mozilla". ;-D


I'm OK with Fedora's scope being expanded beyond just "Linux".  The
Apache Foundation is an example where this has worked quite well.

As for mingw, I agree, the resultant bits need to land in their own
directory structure outside the main tree, just like we do with
seconaries.