Fedora Board IRC Meeting
metherid at gmail.com
Thu Jan 23 19:52:50 UTC 2014
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Hi
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> Put another way, if we're going to make concessions and tell people
> >> how to get said software in our documentation, why would we not make
> >> those same concessions, with the same messaging, in our software where
> >> legally possible?
> > I understand it but a couple of wiki pages don't serve that case very
> > I could setup a redirect now in a couple of minutes and the argument is
> It's not lost. It's moved ;)
II highly doubt, anyone would point out say fedora users list or Ask Fedora
answers and say, hey, we are answering questions on Nvidia driver here, so
lets provide a better method for users to find the Nvidia driver in GNOME
Software. Well, I guess you could but your argument would be pretty weak.
> They aren't random. They were vetted and approved by Fedora Legal as
> being pages that can reference third party repositories. They are, to
> my knowledge, the only such pages approved in a legal sense. If they
> were random, I would have deleted them or had them deleted as I did
> the other pages that were found that weren't approved.
I don't think the Flash page had anything to do with legal approval and to
my knowledge, there is nothing preventing a similar wiki page from
describing say Skype. It is non-free software but there is no legal issue
with describing how to install non-free software. I don't see why one would
need legal approval for that. Something in the wiki doesn't make it
endorsed by Fedora as a project. They are often user contributed content
(for example, FWN summaries describing how to install the Nvidia driver or
even MP3 codecs in great detail) .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the advisory-board