On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 07:09:50PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > But it leads to the strange situation that we can recommend to install
> > ffmpeg if it is bundled with some proprietary software, but cannot do so
> > if it is part of a free software repository.
> Considering that FFmpeg is
Florian Weimer wrote:
> But it leads to the strange situation that we can recommend to install
> ffmpeg if it is bundled with some proprietary software, but cannot do so
> if it is part of a free software repository.
Considering that FFmpeg is LGPL-licensed, I think recommending proprietary
* Debarshi Ray:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 07:19:02AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>> On Monday, October 14, 2019 6:12:18 AM MST mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:49 AM, John M. Harris Jr
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > It's good that we can
>> > > reference external
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 07:19:02AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 6:12:18 AM MST mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:49 AM, John M. Harris Jr
> >
> > wrote:
> > > It's good that we can
> > > reference external repositories such as
mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> I think you're probably right that people mainly want Chrome for the
> multimedia support. But well, surely you are well aware that we'll
> never be able to point to the rpmfusion codecs packages in any official
> location. I know it's very frustrating, but the legal
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:10:11PM -, Leigh Scott wrote:
> > Yes; Leigh, let's please refrain from name calling. I often disagree with
> > John, but I don't think he's acting in bad faith here (or in Fedora in
> > general).
> Did I manage to earn another misconduct badge for that? ;-)
I hope
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 09:01:31PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> Yes; Leigh, let's please refrain from name calling. I often disagree with
> John, but I don't think he's acting in bad faith here (or in Fedora in
> general).
Did I manage to earn another misconduct badge for that? ;-)
> On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 8:59:18 PM MST Leigh Scott wrote:
>
> I am not a troll, and I definitely am listening. I read the third party
> software guidelines very carefully, on both the FESCo page, and the
> Workstation Group's page.
Sorry for mislabeling you :-)
Fedora only provides
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 02:33:41PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> This isn't a settled question in Fedora, and it's one that people feel very
> passionate about in both sides. In the end, we decided that allowing the
> experiment was worthwhile _as a means to the eventual end_. This is why
>
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 01:00:37PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote:
> It's a difficult choice. My understanding is that Fedora does not
> 'recommend' proprietary software, but rather allows it to be found,
> in response to people searching for it by either specific terms
> (package name)
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 09:01:31PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > Don't waste your time answering this troll, he isn't listening.
> I am not a troll, and I definitely am listening. I read the third party
> software guidelines very carefully, on both the FESCo page, and the
> Workstation
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:06:50PM -0500, Ty Young wrote:
> This is gold. Red Hat and Fedora will happily enforce a ridiculous
> Code of Conduct on non Red Hat and Fedora members but Red Hat and
> Fedora contributors will readily engage in name calling, harassment,
> and intimidation both on and
On 10/15/19 10:59 PM, Leigh Scott wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:44 AM, John M. Harris Jr
Don't waste your time answering this troll, he isn't listening.
This is gold. Red Hat and Fedora will happily enforce a ridiculous Code
of Conduct on non Red Hat and Fedora members but Red Hat and
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 8:59:18 PM MST Leigh Scott wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:44 AM, John M. Harris Jr
> > >
> > As previously mentioned in this thread, we already approved Steam for
> > F28.
> >
> >
> > This was also previously addressed earlier in this thread, where I
> >
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:44 AM, John M. Harris Jr
>
> As previously mentioned in this thread, we already approved Steam for
> F28.
>
>
> This was also previously addressed earlier in this thread, where I
> quoted the relevant portion of the policy in full. Please consider
> previous
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 6:58:07 PM MST mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:44 AM, John M. Harris Jr
>
> wrote:
> > Proprietary software is certainly a subset of third party software,
> > however,
> > please read the Workstation group's own page about third party
> >
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 7:01:49 PM MST mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:19 AM, Kevin Kofler
>
> wrote:
> > By actively offering the proprietary Chrome to the users instead of
> > explaining the above, you are actually pointing them towards using
> > proprietary
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:19 AM, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
By actively offering the proprietary Chrome to the users instead of
explaining the above, you are actually pointing them towards using
proprietary software instead of Free Software for no reason.
I think you're probably right that people
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:44 AM, John M. Harris Jr
wrote:
Proprietary software is certainly a subset of third party software,
however,
please read the Workstation group's own page about third party
software.
According to that documentation, the Workstation group itself or
FESCo is
meant to
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 12:16:06 PM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:42:33AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:39:20 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 05:05:51PM +, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
> > > > There is a
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> One of the early drivers of this discussion as I recall was chrome,
> which is definitely a third party software that is also proprietary.
And one where it is entirely pointless to install the proprietary version
because there is Chromium (i.e., the Free Software version) in
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:42:33AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:39:20 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 05:05:51PM +, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
> > > There is a difference between ignoring proprietary software, and providing
> > >
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:39:20 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 05:05:51PM +, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
> > There is a difference between ignoring proprietary software, and providing
> > installation methods for it in the distro. It is against the first of the
> >
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 05:05:51PM +, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
> There is a difference between ignoring proprietary software, and providing
> installation methods for it in the distro. It is against the first of the
> Four Foundations, Freedom, to include these repositories. It's one thing
ved=0
>> That policy is still completely at odds with the Fedora objectives.
>> Recommending proprietary software is entirely incompatible with the
>Freedom
>> goal and actively works against it. So this policy needs to be
>revisited to
>> exclude proprietar
%7Cprzemek.klosowski%40nist.gov%7Cb6880a9e2cb041668b5508d7509033d6%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C1%7C637066452583661821sdata=%2BJLzyHYQO1Oh5yBaRTF9AxAhX9ZD2tQOldCoBBtieRE%3Dreserved=0
That policy is still completely at odds with the Fedora objectives.
Recommending proprietary software is entirely
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:19 PM, John M. Harris Jr
wrote:
And proprietary software, in your opinion, does not?
The requirements for including proprietary software are spelled out
just two paragraphs above the section on legal requirements:
"""
Software not deemed "free" by Fedora
On Monday, October 14, 2019 6:12:18 AM MST mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:49 AM, John M. Harris Jr
>
> wrote:
> > It's good that we can
> > reference external repositories such as rpmfusion-free, in my opinion.
>
> We actually cannot do that. It is prohibited because
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:49 AM, John M. Harris Jr
wrote:
It's good that we can
reference external repositories such as rpmfusion-free, in my opinion.
We actually cannot do that. It is prohibited because it would entail
significant risk.
___
mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> John, the third-party software policy was approved after a long and
> contentious debate:
>
> https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/121
That policy is still completely at odds with the Fedora objectives.
Recommending proprietary software
On Monday, October 14, 2019 2:29:49 AM MST mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> John, the third-party software policy was approved after a long and
> contentious debate:
>
> https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/121
>
> We request review from Fedora Legal when we believe software may
> present
John, the third-party software policy was approved after a long and
contentious debate:
https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/121
We request review from Fedora Legal when we believe software may
present significant risk, such as the recent addition of OpenH264, in
accordance with
On Monday, October 14, 2019 2:10:56 AM MST you wrote:
> catanzaro commented on the pull-request: `Add a filtered flathub remote`
> that you are following: ``
> John, I linked you to the section of the policy that describes what
> third-party software would present unacceptable risk. I further
33 matches
Mail list logo
