I agree with this completely. Functional capability matters quite a lot and we seem to forget this a lot lately. On Apr 21, 2014 7:35 AM, "Stephen Gallagher" <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Fedora's Foundations: “Freedom, > Friends, Features, First", particularly in relation to some very > sticky questions about where certain things fit (such as third-party > repositories, free and non-free web services, etc.) > > Many of these discussions get hung up on wildly different > interpretations of what the "Freedom" Foundation means. First, I'll > reproduce the exact text of the "Freedom" Foundation[1]: > > "Freedom represents dedication to free software and content. We > believe that advancing software and content freedom is a central goal > for the Fedora Project, and that we should accomplish that goal > through the use of the software and content we promote. By including > free alternatives to proprietary code and content, we can improve the > overall state of free and open source software and content, and limit > the effects of proprietary or patent encumbered code on the Project. > Sometimes this goal prevents us from taking the easy way out by > including proprietary or patent encumbered software in Fedora, or > using those kinds of products in our other project work. But by > concentrating on the free software and content we provide and promote, > the end result is that we are able to provide: releases that are > predictable and 100% legally redistributable for everyone; innovation > in free and open source software that can equal or exceed closed > source or proprietary solutions; and, a completely free project that > anyone can emulate or copy in whole or in part for their own purposes." > > The language in this Foundation is sometimes dangerously unclear. For > example, it pretty much explicitly forbids the use of non-free > components in the creation of Fedora (sorry, folks: you can't use > Photoshop to create your package icon!). At the same time, we > regularly allow the packaging of software that can interoperate with > non-free software; we allow Pidgin and other IM clients to talk to > Google and AOL, we allow email clients to connect to Microsoft > Exchange, etc. The real problem is that every time a question comes up > against the Freedom Foundation, Fedora contributors diverge into two > armed camps: the hard-liners who believe that Fedora should never > under any circumstances work (interoperate) with proprietary services > and the the folks who believe that such a hard-line approach is a path > to irrelevance. > > To make things clear: I'm personally closer to the second camp than > the first. In fact, in keeping with the subject of this email, I'd > like to suggest a fifth Foundation, one to ultimately supersede all > the rest: "Functional". Here's a straw-man phrasing of this proposal: > > Functional means that the Fedora community recognizes this to be the > ultimate truth: the purpose of an operating system is to enable its > users to accomplish the set of tasks they need to perform. > > With this in place, it would admittedly water down the Freedom > Foundation slightly. "Freedom" would essentially be reduced to: the > tools to reproduce the Fedora Build Environment and all packages > (source and binary) shipped from this build system must use a > compatible open-source license and not be patent-encumbered. Fedora > would strive to always provide and promote open-source alternatives to > existing (or emerging) proprietary technologies, but accepts that > attracting users means not telling them that they must change all of > their tools to do so). > > The "Functional" Foundation should be placed above the other four and > be the goal-post that we measure decisions against: "If we make this > change, are we reducing our users' ability to work with the software > they want/need to?". Any time the answer to that question would be > "yes", we have to recognize that this translates into lost users (or > at the very least, users that are working around our intentions). > > Now, let me be further clear on this: I am not in any way advocating > the use of closed-source software or services. I am not suggesting > that we start carrying patent-encumbered software. I think it is > absolutely the mission of Fedora to show people that FOSS is the > better long-term solution. However, in my experience a person who is > exposed to open source and allowed to migrate in their own time is one > who is more likely to become a lifelong supporter. A person who is > told "if you switch to Fedora, you must stop using Application X" is a > person who is not running Fedora. > > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAlNVEOcACgkQeiVVYja6o6OrwACfSp6sS7A4h7EDQ0AKnPcGFfCj > GCEAn3R7U8U3PG3slTt4wRX0/GBsr8lJ > =tFhY > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
