SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fedora is drafting a new mission statement. The new initial proposal:
Fedora creates an innovative platform that lights up hardware, clouds, and containers for software developers and community members to build tailored solutions for their users.
The original goal was:
to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software.
Is saying open, or free, openly (excuse the pun) becoming something to be ashamed of? Are project ditching their ideals? Fedora barely mentioned free (or Free, to be more clear), but now it's even more vague. It's like if had to be reminded over and over to those in charge, as the triggered thread demostrates.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Fedora Changing its Project Mission
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 80 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Madness takes its toll.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 19 2017, @08:10AM (3 children)
If your business is selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on you.
How insanely fucking stupid do you have to be to try to sell Linux when the GNU Manifesto itself says not to sell an operating system? Fedora stupid, apparently.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 19 2017, @04:01PM (2 children)
A) Red Hat has never sold their distribution. You get RHEL for free and pay for support.
B) The GPL doesn't forbid selling your product. You just have to make sure they also get the source in the purchase if you go that direction.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday April 19 2017, @05:22PM (1 child)
Sorry, you should have said "Red Hat never sold Fedora Linux". There have been many versions that they did sell. I used to regularly buy "Red Hat, Professional Edition" until they suddenly and without warning discontinued it. They only wanted to sell to companies, or at least to people who were willing to pay thousands of dollars. I haven't followed them closely since then. I took Fedora to be the reincarnation of "Raw Meat" or whatever they called their development version, and the early ones were, though I understand it's gotten more stable.
Debian has been a pretty good replacement, though there was a time when I'd install a new distribution every month just to try them out.
One thing this revision convinces me of is that the GPL is the best license. You can't trust ANY organization not to become corrupt. Currently, and for my own work, I favor the AGPL or the GPL3. But I'm still not convinced to accept the "or any later version" phrase, because you can't trust ANY organization not to become corrupt.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 19 2017, @10:12PM
Have all code licensed under GPLv3/AGPLv3/LGPLv3 with the 'or later' clause provisional on the project head published an enactment of it when the new license comes out, or transferring the right to do so to the suceeding project lead.
This allows you to keep it from being 'or later' if the later licenses suck, but leave the opportunity open unlike in the GPLv2 (no or later) case of Linux. Trying to allow/disallow a change in license is easier if you have the permission implicit up-front rather than having to rewrite or petition every dev at some indeterminate point in the future.