On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:19:03 -0700 Bruce Byfield <bbyfield@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 13:41 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:27:47 -0800 > > Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > the full details > > > can not be publicly disclosed instantaneously due to legal constraint > > > > This I simply don't understand. > > Anybody who has had extensive dealings with lawyers knows that they tend > to err on the side of caution at any time. When a publicly traded > company is involved, that's even more true. In this case, I think "err" is an appropriate word. > Whether Red Hat and Fedora could have acted differently is a debatable > point. And we're debating it. > But that Red Hat acted as it did is not surprising. Just because > a corporation is open source, it doesn't stop being a corporation. But when a corporation claims to be host to a "community", they need to be called on the carpet by that community when they fail to act appropriately. Ultimately, of course, there isn't much the so-called community or its members can do other than either abandon the corporation and go its (their, or his) own way, but less drastic action like a public ass-kicking can sometimes have a beneficial effect too. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
