Unofficial Fedora Remix being advertised on the project front page

[Matthew Garrett]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 03:35:57PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:

> I noticed that unofficial Fedora remix called Pidora was being                                                                                                                                          
> advertised on the projects homepage.   

What do you mean by "unofficial"? There's no set of official remixes.

> Who are the individuals that had this bright idea and decided to
> open up that pandora box which probably violates various US laws
> since general remixes add things like various codes of questionable
> license nature as well as graphics drivers etc, stuff which to this
> point was something we can't legally point.

If you have concrete legal concerns then you should absolutely forward 
those to the board, but I haven't seen any evidence that Pidora contains 
material that would be illegal for us to ship (rather than simply 
material that we would *choose* not to ship).

> And should we not put effort in presenting our own community
> official remixes before we start presenting unofficial ones and
> aren't advertising unofficial remixes on our own mailinglists as
> well frown upon?

I haven't seen the advertising that you're referring to - have you got a 
pointer? Pidora fills a niche that nobody else in the Fedora community 
appears to have expressed an interest in (ie, building something that'll 
run on ARMv6), so there's a benefit to it existing and us indicating 
that it's available to people. Given that it's effectively targetting a 
single device, I don't see any real benefit to including it as part of 
the general Fedora project, especially since it'd almost inevitably be 
restricted to being a secondary architecture.

But really, what's the problem here? People have chosen to build 
something interesting on top of Fedora and we've chosen to let people 
know it exists.
-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org