Proposal: Revision of policy surrounding 3rd party and non-free software
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
johannbg at gmail.com
Wed Jan 22 16:16:31 UTC 2014
On 01/22/2014 03:28 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Is this really the right level to have this dialogue with the user, though -
> when they go to install some app?
> Not to put too tortured of an analogy on it, but if I walk blindly into the
> restaurant down the street and order the shrimp & grits, having the staff
> *then* tell me all they serve are vegan shrimp substitute, and why that's so
> much better for me, my health, the planet, etc. That may be true. And it
> may be a worthwhile conversation to have. But I think it's probably the
> wrong place in the interaction to do so.
So basically the argument here is we are stepping on non-free software’
right to existance and our end users choice to use it.
Back in the day the board rejected that idea and removed codeina again
what has change?
The board choice to stop shipping the pointers to install patent
encumbered, non-free software and provide a route to additional freedom
of choice for people who choice that route, without encumbering the
distro with monocular pointers to non-free content.
In other words Fedora was the choice for end users that did not want to
run distribution with the proprietary bells and whistle and pointers to
them ( which brings up the question what happens to distributions like
korora and others if we change that stance )
At that time I do believe the primary target was "Free and open source
software enthusiasts, developers, and remixers."
Now we seem to be changing all that for Aunt Tilly which resides in the
workstation WG so I have to ask is that the the end user that Fedora
The end user that...
Who wouldn't file a bug report if their lives depended on it?
Be pure content consumers?
Who does not advance Linux, GNU, FOSS, or Fedora?
That do not contribute back to us thus not in the GNU/Linux ecosystem?
And what about the fact that if we point our end users via default
system interactions it creates an implicit expectation that the material
that users are being pointed to does in fact work as advertised and if
it does not that there is a process by which this stuff can get *fixed*.
If we have pointed people to an application "store" repository or
whatever we will have created an expectation that the software hosted by
party does function with our default configuration.
Thus with my QA on those of you advocating this can you come up with a
reasonable pre-release testing plan and bugfix updating process that
this project could rely on with regard to those 3rd party bits.
Seriously if that 3rd party software does not integrate as well, who's
on the hook for making sure it does?
We in Quality Assurance? No we got enough on our plate!
Our releng team? It has no direct authority over how the software in
those 3rd party vendors is patched or packaged!
By pointing people to any particular vendor we create an implicit
expectation that the software there will function.
If it doesn't for example work with selinux out of the box or any other
reason for that matter then our project's developers might not have the
access necessary to fix the problem in the 3rd party packaging.
If Fedora is going to be visionary certain people just have to accept
the fact that great visionaries are the minority...
More information about the advisory-board