3rd Party Applications and Fedora Workstation
Paul W. Frields
stickster at gmail.com
Tue Jan 20 19:55:05 UTC 2015
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 02:58:35PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> 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.
A different category IMHO. Anyone might reasonably question or
propose down the line a different approach for software that remixers
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
More information about the desktop