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 [...] In short, more functionality, less philosophy.
Whew. Lots of stuff here, of a perfectly valid philosophical bent, and unfortunately I do not have anywhere near the time I would need in order to participate properly in this discussion. Let me just throw out a couple of thoughts, though...
1. This is not just a philosophical discussion; to a large extent it is a practical one. A large part of the Fedora developers and a big part of the sponsorship and resources and dedication come from Red Hat, Inc. As they have done for a number of years, they seek to foster the growth and development of Free (when I capitalize it, it means "with freedom" rather than "without cost") software, since Red Hat Linux, Fedora Linux, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux all needed or need to draw in one way or another on that development for future tools. Using proprietary or closed software is, to them, being given a fish rather than learning to fish.
2. Red Hat (and now Fedora) have put forth huge efforts to help standardize and simplify software for Linux. Software which refuses to allow modification of installation paths, for example, works against that standardization.
3. They seek to have patches supplied and integrated quickly and reliably, and rely in part on the Open Source philosophy to put lots of eyeballs in front of every piece of code hoping to make the code both more reliable and more trustworthy. Software which does not permit someone else to submit or integrate patches which result in new, released versions works against that mechanism of support for users.
4. Resources are short enough for everyone as it is. When you include a closed-source package on a distro, then you face the prospect of bugs in that package (inevitable in all packages) raising Cain with the functionality and stability of other components of your system, but not being able to debug (and therefore support) them. The result is a higher cost in resources for a lower return on that investment.
5. In some cases, software makers simply will not allow the redistribution under terms which make Fedora's very "business model" possible. DJB is one example, MySQL 4.x is another... for various reasons, people chose to license or publish their software under philosophical terms which cannot coexist with Fedora's. Others do so under terms which would allow Fedora to include them, but which would not allow Red Hat Enterprise Linux to include them. This is less important but still has a significant impact, given that Fedora does represent the technology and stability feeder for RHEL and thus justifies some of the $X Red Hat spends per month on development, bandwidth, and other resources for Fedora.
6. Philosophically, even if some Free packages are less mature than their proprietary equivalents, including the Free packages in the distro exposes them to a great deal of use, therefore testing, therefore usually interest, therefore usually development. This helps push those Free packages forward and sometimes (ref ATI) convince manufacturers to open-source their software or drivers for everyone's benefit.
These points do not intend or attempt to be all-inclusive, carved in stone, or anything else. They are merely thoughts which suggest that Fedora's objectives have both philosophical and practical grounds and purpose, and why I find those to be a positive thing.
-- Rodolfo J. Paiz rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.simpaticus.com
