LWN headline: Blame Fedora = High Praise

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 12:15 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  1, 2007, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >>> Atleast in Fedora the division is clearly documented in the
> >>> packaging guidelines.
> >> 
> >> Which is and has always been incompatible with the stated goals of the
> >> Fedora project.
> 
> > It may be worth pointing out here that Fedora currently only includes
> > objectives/packaging-guidelines to be opensource/redistributable,
> 
> Err...  Except that, when I got into this thread, I was thanking Rahul
> for the clarification on the front page.
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ says:
> 
>   All in pursuit of the best operating system and platform that <a
>   href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html"> free
>   software</a> can provide.
> 
> So if what you say is true, the front page ought to be amended.  Or
> vice-versa.
> 
> > (1) redistributability was considered good enough (for now), notably
> > because firmware is tied to hardware, and doesn't run on the host cpu.
> 
> I understand the double-thinking, I'm merely pointing out the
> inconsistency with the stated goal in the front page.

I agree.  The link is not an accurate definition of what is included in
the distribution.

One could make a reasonable arguement that firmware is not "software",
but I would rather have that link point to a page in our wiki that
explains a bit more clearly what is included and why.

josh