-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: pfrields | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Resolution:
Keywords: workstation |
-------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by uraeus):
Replying to [comment:7 robyduck]:
> ah, I only replied to the mail...pasting here again.
>
> Finally I've read this document, but I really have some concerns about
third party software.
> I'm one of those users who believes in Fedora, because it has no third
party software in it. It's all open source, that makes it different to
other distributions, otherwise I could use plenty of other distros. And I
think we should care about this value, and also about all the users who
chose Fedora because it has this characteristic. Furthermore, it is very
very easy nowadays to install third party software, and people (already)
do that on their own risk because often it compromises the Fedora system.
> Even COPR is a third party repo, but it respects at least the Fedora
guidelines, which other repos don't do.
>
> That said, I'm not against enabling a sort of shared installer which
labels third party software, but it should not only label it but also pop
up a warning that the end user is going to install software outside of the
Fedora universe, and that this can in some cases compromise his system.
People are used to click and don't think about what they are doing, so we
should remember that clearly.
I think the proposal also addresses most of your concerns, as there is no
suggestion to ship Fedora with non-free software out of the box (well not
beyond the firmware we already ship), but in terms of the warning do you
want that to happen on every application install? Or on the first time the
user tries to install a given piece of 3rd party software? I don't mind
the first, but if you want the second I think we cross the line from
informative to annoying.
> I have also some concerns about replacing package formats, we should
encourage community members to make Fedora packages, and not just allow
upstream package formats. Like Matt I don't understand why we should
prefer upstream packages, which very often care more about other
distributions...let's prefer community member's packages.
Well the document leaves it up to the working groups to decide which
package they want to go with, and I think that is a better solution than
mandating one or the other package. Which package is the best will be
different on a case to case basis and it might even change over time, so
tying the hands of the working groups is just shooting ourselves in the
foot. In practice I would think that a Fedora specific package would be
the best simply because it has been built and configured for Fedora, but I
don't want one or the other to be hardcoded in the policy.
> The document actually is still rather generic, if we want to allow third
party software in some kind we need to write a very strict document about
what we allow and what not. We can facilitate the use of third party
software, but Fedora is free and should remain free and open source.
Well remember this is a proposal for software to be available, not bundled
or pre-installed, and once again I think we need the working groups to
have the ability to evaluate this on an ongoing basis instead of coming up
with detailed and inflexible rules and regulations.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/57#comment:8>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
_______________________________________________
council-discuss mailing list
council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and
open source software and content as a collaborative community.
No comments:
Post a Comment