[email protected] wrote:
See the thread on finding a replacement for pine and why pine isn't
included with Fedora. The problem isn't so much one of distributing
both open source and closed source so much as not distributing software
that doesn't have a license that the Fedora packagers feel they can live
with. This is usually worse for closed source but there are open source
programs such as pine that don't meet the criteria.
Craig White wrote:
Things like flash player, though free are not open source and are
available in binary format only which creates an issue if distributed in
conjunction with software that is GPL license.
Please, research this point and show is what the problem is.
I believe there is not problem distributing GPL and non-free software
as part of the same collation.
The problem Red Hat has is that it cannot support flash, java and
such. Red Hat got burned with CDE some years ago; I imagine this is a
factor in its current attitude. Other vendors do distribute varying
amounts of closed-source software.
Then there are patent issues as Rahul suggested with things like audio
and video codecs/formats which could present a sticky wicket for a
I wonder how many Americans know what a sticky wicket is?
[email protected] [email protected]
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
do not reply off-list
I'm also guessing that there is a level of not wanting to include any
software that might be legally encumbered that makes including closed
source especially problematic. If nothing else, any such program that
isn't freely redistributable means someone within the Fedora
organization has to go off and research the license and possibly
negotiate a means for including the closed source program in Fedora.
I'm thinking the Fedora folks have better things to do with their time
and there is nothing to stop any of us users from deciding we can
individually live with somebody's closed source licensing terms.