Re: Infinite Freedom???

Bryan J Smith wrote: [...] +1, *applause* Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list

Re: Infinite Freedom???

Ok Reading the answers i see how the VOICE of the community is heard and is "very important" in the project! On 6/20/07, Christopher Aillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rodrigo Padula wrote: > If the Free Software Foundation says that the use of non free firmwares > affect our freedom, us m

Re: Infinite Freedom???

I tried to be nice in my first response, making a suggestion for consideration by the board. Technical feasibility, after redistribution and related indemnification issues, is the priority before we put philosophy in front of simple, GPL compatible bundling. But after that, and I have to apolog

Re: Infinite Freedom???

Rodrigo Padula wrote: I think that firmwares would not have to be distributed in fedora Medias > (CDS, DVDS). Thanks for your opinion. We disagree. The FSF disagree of you! Do you represent the FSF? If not, please don't make such strong statements on their behalf. We agree with the FSF

Re: Infinite Freedom???

Bryan J Smith wrote: > I tried to be nice in my first response, making a suggestion for > consideration by the board. Technical feasibility, after redistribution > and related indemnification issues, is the priority before we put > philosophy in front of simple, GPL compatible bundling. An absolu

Re: Infinite Freedom???

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Rodrigo Padula wrote: Ok Reading the answers i see how the VOICE of the community is heard and is "very important" in the project! Rodrigo, With all due respect, I think you're being a bit melodramatic. In the end, every project must come up with their own set of "o

Re: Infinite Freedom???

On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 13:58 -0300, Rodrigo Padula wrote: > Ok > > Reading the answers i see how the VOICE of the community is heard and > is "very important" in the project! Obviously the voice of the community is very important to Fedora. Do you agree? Or is the above a bit of sarcasm? I

Re: Infinite Freedom???

On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 14:58 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: > And if you submit this version for board approval as an "official" Fedora > release, I'm pretty sure you'd get it. Who should actually approve different spins as being "Formally Fedora"? /me likes the audio pun in that title, and it

Re: Infinite Freedom???

Rodrigo Padula wrote: > Ok > > Reading the answers i see how the VOICE of the community is heard and is > "very important" in the project! Rodrigo, Actually... I'd like to thank you for speaking up, especially about something you are clearly passionate about. Just because not everyone agre

Re: Infinite Freedom???

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: But remember this: one of the the biggest reasons for opening ALL of the production tools for F7 was to make it *as easy as possible* for people who disagree with the "official" policy to build their own versions of Fedora. What does this mean?

Re: Infinite Freedom???

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Karsten Wade wrote: On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 14:58 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: And if you submit this version for board approval as an "official" Fedora release, I'm pretty sure you'd get it. Who should actually approve different spins as being "Formally Fedora"? The

Re: Infinite Freedom???

Karsten Wade wrote: > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 14:58 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: > >> And if you submit this version for board approval as an "official" Fedora >> release, I'm pretty sure you'd get it. > > Who should actually approve different spins as being "Formally Fedora"? > > /me likes t

Re: 3rd party repositories vs the floppy disk

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 15:46 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > In fact it is a 'problem' that should not exist at all. 3rd party > repositories should not need to exist for the distribution of > proprietary or patented (eg. non-free) software if only all software was > free. Fedora (or: Free So

Re: Infinite Freedom???

On 6/20/07, Karsten Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 13:58 -0300, Rodrigo Padula wrote: > Ok > > Reading the answers i see how the VOICE of the community is heard and > is "very important" in the project! Obviously the voice of the community is very important to Fedora.

Re: Infinite Freedom???

On 6/20/07, Greg Dekoenigsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: > But remember this: one of the the biggest reasons for opening ALL of the > production tools for F7 was to make it *as easy as possible* for people who > disagree with the "official" policy

Re: Infinite Freedom???

Rodrigo Padula wrote: Thinking in Fedora 8, what will be made in this direction ?? It would be very interesting if firmwares was isolated in optional packages(intel wi-fi drivers and firmwares), becoming the images of fedora 100% free. Or, why not a Fedora Spin 100% Free ? Sure. Do you wan

Linux.org: The Fedora 7 Year Itch

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 " A while back, after publishing a review praising a past version of Fedora Core, I was chided by a reader who objected to my referring to it as 'beta' software. In my mind, it was always understood that the Fedora project was the test bed for Red Hat

Re: Infinite Freedom???

Rodrigo Padula wrote: > On 6/20/07, *Greg Dekoenigsberg* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > For what it's worth, I will *encourage* people to make their own > versions > of Fedora that adhere to *their* standards of what Fedora should and > shouldn't be. And we let the Marketplace of Users decid

Re: Infinite Freedom???

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Or, why not a Fedora Spin 100% Free ? Sure. Do you want to do it? can you explain on what you consider 100% Free? It is just software or do you want to remove content which isn't modifiable including documentation, fonts, images etc. Note that Fed

Re: Infinite Freedom???

Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Rodrigo Padula wrote: > >> Thinking in Fedora 8, what will be made in this direction ?? >> It would be very interesting if firmwares was isolated in optional >> packages(intel wi-fi drivers and firmwares), becoming the images of >> fedora 100% free. >> >> Or, why not a Fedo

Re: Infinite Freedom???

On 6/20/07, Rahul Sundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rodrigo Padula wrote: > Thinking in Fedora 8, what will be made in this direction ?? > It would be very interesting if firmwares was isolated in optional > packages(intel wi-fi drivers and firmwares), becoming the images of > fedora 100% fre

Re: Infinite Freedom??? - the self-fulfilling prophecy of majority

I'm going to shut-up after this. The voice of the community has a tendency to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's based on majority thought, which is fine for freedom and other social constructs, but not in technical and legal application. I.e., it quickly becomes a prophecy and religion base

Re: Infinite Freedom???

Rodrigo Padula wrote: On 6/20/07, *Rahul Sundaram* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Rodrigo Padula wrote: > Thinking in Fedora 8, what will be made in this direction ?? > It would be very interesting if firmwares was isolated in optional > packages(intel

Re: Linux.org: The Fedora 7 Year Itch

Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 " A while back, after publishing a review praising a past version of Fedora Core, I was chided by a reader who objected to my referring to it as 'beta' software. In my mind, it was always understood that the Fedora project wa

Re: Infinite Freedom??? -- More Insignificant Wisdom ...

Now that I'm away from my Crackberry ... More Insignificant Wisdom ... On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 13:34 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > An absolutely reasonable suggestion. As a matter of fact, the Board > considered that initially, but opted not to separate this content over > concerns of simply not i