On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > On 4/10/07, Anne Wilson <cannewilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > > > On 4/10/07, Anne Wilson <cannewilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 10 April 2007 05:31, Ed Greshko wrote: > > > > > linuxmaillists@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > I just want to know what other > > > > > > packages are on the Fedora distro that are are > > > > > > missing original functionality simply because > > > > > > of legal issues. > > > > > > > > > > And that would help how? Yes, you'd know what > > > > > you're missing...but you already know you're > > > > > missing "something" so why not install the > > > > > OpenOffice rpms and be assured of missing > > > > > nothing. > > > > > > > > No-one is answering the question. Forget the > > > > OpenOffice fixation. The question is 'How do we > > > > know which of Fedora's packages have been altered > > > > in this way?' > > > > > > I suppose you might say that you didn't like my > > > ambiguous, non-official response, but I would prefer > > > that you hold me to some regard higher than "no-one". > > > I'll attempt a response again. > > > > > > OpenOffice is the first I have heard of this. And > > > while I believe this particular thing is a small > > > thing, I suppose others disagree. If you know of > > > other specific cases, let us know... maybe someone > > > can keep track. But to my knowledge no such list > > > exists, what does exist is the publicly known policy. > > > Again, no such list as that you request exists to my > > > knowledge. > > > > > > And besides OpenOffice, which I wasn't aware of, I am > > > aware of no other such deficiencies. And lack of > > > codecs do not fit this bill since codecs aren't part > > > of the program. The feature in question here was part > > > of the program. > > > > > > > OpenOffice would be one, but there are others. > > > > Totem comes to mind, and I'd guess that there are > > > > lots more. As Les remarked, it could be indicated > > > > in the package name. > > > > > > Or, one could be aware of Fedora's fairly simple and > > > straight forward policies. > > > > > > > As for how it would help, we could then decide for > > > > ourselves whether we need to go to the source and > > > > build our own packages. > > > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > You could always do that. Have you suffered from any > > > such "stripping" before? > > > > No, Arthur. You are still not answering the question. > > To be truthful, I doubt if anyone here can. You (and > > others) go over and over the same points about > > OpenOffice. That is not what the question was. The > > question, once again, is how many other packages are > > similarly affected? and how could you know? > > > > Being aware of the policies is no help at all if you > > don't know which bit of coding might transgress and > > whether it is present in the source material. > > > > Anne > > The answer was... "such a list does not exist' > > -- > Fedora Core 6 and proud Where can we go to make a request that a list be created. Because the Fedora/RH team evaluates all the software, the lawyers get involved and the software that has to be modified is identified and then dealt with accordingly. So there is knowledge somewhere in the company of what software has been changed to remove function that is declared legally dangerous to use in the distro. -- If the word following begins with a vowel, the word you want is... to read the rest of this, go here http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/a.html
