3rd Party Applications and Fedora Workstation

Matthias Clasen mclasen at redhat.com
Mon Jan 19 23:44:49 UTC 2015

On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 19:51 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> 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
> * Bad combinations of licences, e.g. gstreamer-plugins-bad
> * Freely licensed but somehow legally encumbered, e.g. MP3 codec
> * Nonfree and legally encumbered, e.g. Skype
> IANAL, so the examples and scale are of course up for discussion.

I think there are limits to how fine distinctions we can make here - not
just because the differences will be lost to many users, but also
because somebody has to maintain all this information. I would suggest
to start with just two levels here:

 * Free, legally redistributable, just not in Fedora proper
 * Everything else

For the first one, we need a text makes it clear that Fedora is not the
source and can't promise security updates or quality. But it shouldn't
be 'scary' and mention prosecution.

For the second, we should probably have a stronger warning, more like
the one in your screenshots.

And expect that we'll only aim to include repo files from the first
category here.

More information about the desktop mailing list