[Fedora-infrastructure-list] Fedora's FLOSS prociples (was: coverity code checker in Extras)

[Nils Breunese]

Axel Thimm wrote:

> The kernel-uses-bitkeeper-technology created more noise than it served
> good and bitkeeper was closer to open source than coverity while Linus
> was less pondering on FLOSS principles than the Fedora goals do, so
> projecting that to the future I see endless threads about the
> pure-FLOSS Linux using non-FLOSS tools.
>
> There is an argument often brought up in these situations which goes
> like "since no FLOSS alternative exists, we need to use that". But the
> same is true about ipw* firmwares/closed source daemons, closed source
> 3D graphics and so on. There is even discussion of not allowing
> external kernel modules, even fully FLOSSed ones, in Fedora to
> demonstrate Fedora's embracement and loyality to FLOSS.

Well, maybe Fedora should ditch apache, wireshark, perl, python,  
samba, subversion, vim, xmms and a lot of other packages then, as  
they are already checked by Coverity. Check the banner on  
scan.coverity.com, even the Linux kernel is.

Nils Breunese.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20060831/2d253d57/attachment.bin