Board efforts: scope, concept, and permission?
airlied at redhat.com
Wed Feb 3 22:03:36 UTC 2010
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 19:08 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > It is. It's one step removed. There were people actively wanting to make
> > Zope/Plone work via a compat-python stack. It went all the way to FESCo
> > and got voted down. The zope/plone users were the target audience there.
> > There were people willing to do the work, all they needed was a yes from
> > FESCo. We told them no. As Jesse has mentioned, 'status quo' won out.
> I think this was just a bad decision. I complained back then and I still
> think we did the wrong thing. We should be as encompassing as legally
> possible within our Free Software ideals. Those packages eventually ended up
> in RPM Fusion anyway, like most of the stuff we refuse, so what was the
> point of preventing them from going into Fedora? Supportability concerns
> aren't going to vanish just because the package ends up in a third-party
> repository, and we have no way to prevent that.
> I also think for the same reasons that we should allow acceptably-licensed
> (GPLv2 or compatible) kernel modules as external packages in Fedora, banning
> them gains us nothing and loses us hardware support we could gain without
> any moral (software freedom) compromises or legal risks.
What happens if we rebuild the kernel and one of the sub-modules doesn't
get rebuilt and the maintainer goes awol? or it needs major rework to
get built. Clearly you've never actually read any of the reasoning
behind why we do this.
More information about the devel