Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2009-02-03

[inode0]

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2009-02-08 at 2:06:33 -0500, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I will admit I'm now baffled by spot's position expressed in the BZ.
>> If it is code, and I don't see why it is any different than cowsay
>> without a free perl in that respect, then it should be rejected for
>> the reasons spot gave here.
>
> Well, OVM doesn't execute. It doesn't need to be compiled into anything.
> It's really content.

Ok, I guess OVM being characterized as source code and a class library
(and it looks like it is exactly that) and the thing FESCo requested
to be added calling itself a compiler and simulator made me think it
was code that needed to be compiled.

But we aren't using the code -> compile -> execute model in this area.
So maybe it is code but it isn't executable code and thus falls into
content. So OVM might be closer to just an rpm containing a library of
cow files in the absence of the program cowsay needed to
interpret/manipulate/display them?! The cow library can be thought of
as source code but it never becomes executable, it is just a language
only cowsay with as assist from perl understands how to use.

> Think of it as a .png file. It's obviously content, because it doesn't
> execute, nor does it need to be compiled into anything, but for it to be
> used, something has to be able to parse the PNG format.
>
> We judge content on whether it enhances the user experience. I'd argue
> that the OVM content does enhance the experience for an Electronics Lab
> User, but FESCo disagrees. That's why they get to make the ultimate call. :)

Thanks again spot for helping me sort this out. While I think I
understand the distinctions being made here perhaps we should stop. :)

John