Fedora Freedom and linux-libre
jeff
moe at blagblagblag.org
Mon Jun 16 05:34:15 UTC 2008
Hans de Goede wrote:
> If I get Alex correctly he is saying that, to his goal, which is 100%
> Free software everywhere (including in his toothbrush), this is
> counterproductive, as it may make it easier to distribute binary
> firmware along with the kernel, as it now could be put in a seperate
> tarbal removing GPL worries etc.
>
> As much as I admire Alex's goal's I'm very glad with the current
> pragmatic approach Fedora has taken with regards to firmware.
>
> And when combining both these perspectives, David, you patch is
> excellent and I'm very gratefull for all the work you've been doing on it.
>
> If the firmware truely gets put in a different tarbal (and thus
> eventually in a different srpm), then it will be feasible to do a no
> blobs included Fedora spin like gnewsense, which would be great.
If you have to do a *SEPARATE* spin to do a free CD, why does the Fedora
project spew crap like this everywhere:
"We try to always do the right thing, and provide only free and open source
software." [1]
It's simply not true and the author of that (Rahul Sundaram I think--he writes
it everywhere else too), *MUST* know that isn't true. It's one thing if the
non-free software that fedora shipped was considered a bug that just hasn't
been eradicated but shipping non-free software is fedora *policy*.[1]
It's one thing to include some firmware, call a program GPL when it's not, ship
non-free binaries etc., but at least don't lie about it on all your literature.
Sheez.
-Jeff
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/FirmWare geez, you even have a special
interest group in complete conflict with your supposed mission
More information about the devel
mailing list