On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 23:06 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote: > On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 10:49 -0700, David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud) > wrote: > > debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > 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 > > >> distribution. > > > > > > > > > I wonder how many Americans know what a sticky wicket is? > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > A recent example of a snafu with licensing was mysql. When the license > was revised (I believe it was GPLed) with the release of mysql version > 4.X the older 3.23 version was all that was available in Fedora until > the terms of the revised license and its effects on distribution were > ironed out so that Fedora felt safe that they would not be subject to > liability for the distribution. > > The fact that something is GPLed or otherwise open source does not > automatically rule out licensing issues. ---- the mysql example doesn't exactly clarify much of anything but the actual issue is described here... http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5173014.html Craig
