Timothy Selivanow wrote:
Not everything that fedora makes difficult is illegal. Sun Java, for
one example, the drivers provided by the vendors of the hardware users
have chosen to purchase for another.
(doing my part to move the thread back to some-what on topic...)
It *used*to* be illegal to redistribute Java without Sun in the middle
(still subject to interpretation).
And even then, there were ways to provide compatibility with RPM and the
quirky alternatives system even though the user had to supply his own
copy of the Sun code (the jpackage nosrc package...). That wasn't so
bad except for the jpackage repo being so generic that it took a while
to find the right instructions for this week's fedora version. Now,
fedora has broken all relationships with this repository without
supplying an alternative so you can spend all day trying to find the
right instructions and still not succeed. How can anyone believe that
is the right way to treat users?
That is until Java6, when Sun made
the DLJ (https://jdk-distros.dev.java.net/developer.html) and made it
retro-active for Java5. That said, have you /read/ the DLJ? It's not
exactly a fertile ground for Fedora mission objectives.
I have no interest in distributing java. I want to use it, and would
probably use it under fedora if it wasn't next to impossible.
There was also wording that sounded like you may not be able to break it
into pieces (distribution is subject to the wording in the included
README, from the FAQ Section 9: """it allows us to adjust the technical
details of what constitutes the "Software" and what parts may be
redistributed separately or omitted from a distribution without revising
the license itself."""), even the way that JPackage does it. JPackage
is not subject to the DLJ because they are not a distro. Furthermore
they provide nosrc RPMs which require users to still go through the Sun
click-through... which satisfies Sun.
Doesn't sound very libre to me...
But it's _my_ freedom that I want to protect, not your political agenda.
Why should I be interested in a distribution that makes it difficult
for me to make my own choices about whether a license is acceptable or
not? I don't have a problem with downloading my own copy of any
particular code from any particular place under any conditions that I
find acceptable. The problem is that fedora makes it exceptionally
difficult to install and run java instead of the non-standard versions
that it includes.
Additionally, there are only *three* distros that have signed the DLJ:
Debian, Ubuntu (Mark helped Sun draft the DLJ, BTW), and Gentoo. RH has
a separate agreement to "distribute" (essentially the drop-in RPMs that
Sun provides) it with EL that is not subject to the DLJ.
And that's a good reason to use those distributions, along with the
other user friendly things they have done.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
