On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 19:09, in a fit of delirium, I wrote: > On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 15:18, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > > Anyone who agrees with me is welcome to their opinion, and so is anyone who > > does not. Thankfully, the Fedora Project's goals do and, as a member of > > this community, I shall lobby for those goals and objectives not to be changed. > > This bothers me. Why limit the choices of others? I mis-spoke here. It actually doesn't bother me that you would lobby to keep the agreed on Fedora goals and objectives unchanged. I'm all for your right to speak out for your opinion. I guess I should just say that I disagree with you and that I believe the Fedora community should open the door to packages with licenses that you would deem objectionable, including "closed source" licenses that Fedora could actually get the rights to redistribute (possibly one or more of Java, Flash, nVidia 3D drivers, etc.). Rather than having a system which meets the philosophical objectives of some fraction of the user base (possibly > 50%, I don't know), but then forces the other large fraction to jump through hoops to get what they want, I'd rather have a distribution that provides it all and then allows the user to select what he wants according to his philosophical bent. Yes, we'd have to decide what "all" is, given the finite space afforded a distribution, but you get the point. In short, more functionality, less philosophy. -- Dave Roberts <ldave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
