3rd Party Applications and Fedora Workstation
notting at splat.cc
Mon Jan 19 19:58:35 UTC 2015
Richard Hughes (hughsient at gmail.com) said:
> On 19 January 2015 at 18:28, Christian Schaller <cschalle at redhat.com> wrote:
> > So my suggestion is that we have an initial discussion about this on the next workstation meeting and based on what we decide there I be happy
> > to start drafting some documents outlining how this could work.
> I think we really need to decide on a sliding scale of non-freeness
> and get some wording for each, For example:
> * Free, legally redistributable, but just not in Fedora proper, e.g.
> Chromium, various stuff in COPRs
> * Non-free but legally redistributable, e.g. Chrome
... would "non-free, but legally installable as long as you're getting it
from the third-party source" be a subset of this, or a different category?
The canonical example of this is the Cisco H.264 module, but I suspect
more 3rd-party software falls into this category - for all I know, Chrome
and Flash do as well.
More information about the desktop