The Forgotten "F": A Tale of Fedora's Foundations
leamas.alec at gmail.com
Wed Apr 23 08:45:34 UTC 2014
On 4/22/14, Przemek Klosowski <przemek.klosowski at nist.gov> wrote:
>> Everything in our repos is free, so putting the choice in the
>> installer seems off to me. Our policy (which is complex and obviously
>> driven by things stronger than the UX) generally leaves it to users
>> post-install to add encumbered software. I don't actually see the
>> advantage to the user in changing that. PackageKit's UI used to have
>> filters I think some were based on license. Maybe the GNOME software
>> devs would be interested in having some kind of selection for the type
>> of software offered to you. Similarly to how some Android app stores
>> work - e.g. show me only free apps, or you can show me paid apps too.
Even if everything in our repos is free, should we assume that
everything in the user's repos is free? What if user installs e. g.,
the rpmfusion repos?
What we could do is to recognize the fact that many (most?) users adds
repositories with all sorts of software, rpmfusion being an example.
And let this be part of the vision forming our tools, instead of a
strict fedora-only approach.
There are some aspects on this:
- I don't think Fedora is able add non-free, patent-encumbered sw in
e. g., in the way Ubuntu does - it fails on the fact that US law is
applicable (Ubuntu and rpmfusion are in the EU). Which makes solutions
like rpmfusion the way to go.
- rpmfusion could be improved to be a 'one-stop' shop for most
non-free/patent encumbered sw.
- When developing new tools like the Software Installer it would be
nice if there is cooperation so that some external repo content was
visible from an early stage as a proof of concept.
Just my 5 öre,
More information about the devel