Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:21:41 -0300
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat.com> wrote:

> I didn't mean to start the discussion here.  Is this normal procedure?

Sure.  Any email is open for discussion.

> On May 21, 2008, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:20:39 -0300
> > Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> >> On May 21, 2008, Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to
> >> > this mail and I'll add it to the schedule.
> >> 
> >> Given that Freedom² is a major fedora feature, I'd like to discuss
> >> enabling the creation of Fedora spins containing exclusively Free
> >> Software.  These are related sub-topics:
> >> 
> >> . Permission to distribute under the mark 'Fedora' spins containing
> >> kernel-libre packages, whose sole difference from identically-numbered
> >> Fedora kernel builds is the removal of a few pieces of non-Free
> >> Software.
> 
> > All spins must be composed of packages that are contained within the
> > Fedora repositories.  kernel-libre does not fit that category (today).
> 
> IOW, you oppose the idea of making an exception to enable people to
> distribute spins of Fedora with the Freedom² feature in it?

Yes.

> >> . Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of the
> >> kernel-libre package, a 100% Free Software variant of the kernel
> >> Linux, that I've been maintaining tracking Fedora kernel builds at
> >> http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/linux-libre/
> 
> > We've had this discussion.  We aren't going to allow a forked kernel
> > package.
> 
> We're talking about a different package here.  This is not a fork.
> Call it a branch if you must label it to achieve the purpose of
> denying freedom to Fedora users.

Ok, then I'll call it an alternate kernel package.  Which we still
aren't going to allow.

> > Please work with the kernel team to integrate this into the
> > main kernel package.
> 
> I believe I've already explained why I can't do that.  I refuse to
> distribute non-Free Software, and posting a patch that removes these
> bits amounts to posting those very bits.

So work with upstream to get them removed or pushed to separate
firmware packages.

> Now, how about *you* work with the Fedora team to provide Fedora users
> with one of its advertised features?  I wouldn't mind if you took the
> xdelta or the tarball or the srpm I created, that provides Fedora
> users with freedom, and took it upstream.  But both of us know
> upstream doesn't want that and doesn't care about the freedom that
> Fedora claims to care about.  How do we get out of this conundrum?

Given your preference to not work in a manner which would be compatible
with Fedora Engineering practices, I'm not sure there is a way out.
However perhaps you can enlist some help from someone that would be
willing to do that.

> Admit that Fedora is not about Freedom, such that I move on and stop
> trying to achieve the stated goal, or actually work to at least enable
> users to enjoy this stated goal?

I think that's hyperbole.  I also think the firmware rules we have in
place are fair and beneficial for most users.

I have no problems with you working towards your goal.  As I said
before, I commend it.  However doing that with an alternative kernel
package isn't something that sits well.

> >> . Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of a
> >> fedora-freedom "virtual" package, that Requires: linux-libre and
> >> Conflicts: with any Fedora package known to contain software (firmware
> >> included) that does not respect the 4 freedoms established in the Free
> >> Software definition.  AFAIK these would pretty much amount to the
> >> standard non-Free kernel and a bunch of *-firmware packages, but there
> >> could be sub-packages to cover other debatable packages with obscure
> >> source code, dubious licensing policies, etc.
> 
> > You don't need a package.  Make a comps group.
> 
> One of us is missing something.  How would a comps group prevent the
> accidental installation of say non-Free kernel or firmware packages
> brought in through unintended dependencies, for a user who wants to
> make sure no such software is installed, for example?

Fine, a fair point.  Create a Free spin via a kickstart file.  Having
that virtual package is more pain to maintain than a ks file and sort
of goes against how we tend to do things.

> > I think we can certainly discuss it.  However I believe the biggest
> > hurdle to what you propose is the extra kernel-libre package.
> 
> I suppose you're talking about disk space.  I sympathize with that,

Hardly.  I'm talking about having any alternate kernel, period.

> > Your overall proposal hinges on that, and the way you've stated you
> > would like to provide it has been frowned upon quite a bit.
> 
> And largely misunderstood while at that.  Not by everyone who objected
> to it, for sure.

I don't think there's been a large misunderstanding.  Simply two
differing opinions on the matter.

josh