[Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 13:11 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:02:31 -0700
> Adam Williamson <adamwill at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 
> > Kernel modules are kind of a grey area because there are differing
> > opinions on their legality in re the GPL, but in general terms,
> > it's
> > not correct to say we don't include non-free software for *legal*
> > reasons. There are plenty of non-free-but-legally-redistributable
> > things, e.g. Flash. We have always been clear that we disallow non-
> > free software unconditionally for *philosophical*, not *legal*,
> > reasons.
> 
> Wat?
> 
> From https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/
> 
> https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal
> /licenses-terms/pdf/PlatformClients_PC_WWEULA-en_US-20150407_1357.pdf
> 
> "3.3 Distribution. This license does not grant you the right to
> sublicense or distribute the Software"
> 
> Flash is not legally-redistributable. 

Huh, maybe it changed? Or there's a different license somewhere. I'm
almost sure it used to be, and this was intentional. Oh well,
substitute some other example, you get the point - Sun's Java or
something. It was just an example. There *are* non-free,
redistributable things out there.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net