Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting
 

Hi all,

Please find below the list of topics that are likely to come up in the
next FESCo meeting that is scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday at 17:00 UTC
in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.org:

/topic FESCo meeting -- Any objection to this week's report from FPC at
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-May/msg01414.html

/topic FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora

You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to
this mail and I'll add it to the schedule. You can also propose topics
in the meeting while it is in the "Free discussion around Fedora" phase.

If your name/nick is on above list please update the status on the
Extras schedule pages in the wiki ahead of the meeting. That way all the
other FESCo members and interested contributors know what up ahead of
the meeting. And we will avoid long delays in the meeting -- those often
arise if someone describes the recent happenings on a topic directly in
the meeting while all the others have to wait for his slow typing...

Later,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org>

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting
 

On May 21, 2008, Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to
> this mail and I'll add it to the schedule.

Given that Freedom² is a major fedora feature, I'd like to discuss
enabling the creation of Fedora spins containing exclusively Free
Software. These are related sub-topics:

. Permission to distribute under the mark 'Fedora' spins containing
kernel-libre packages, whose sole difference from identically-numbered
Fedora kernel builds is the removal of a few pieces of non-Free
Software.

. Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of the
kernel-libre package, a 100% Free Software variant of the kernel
Linux, that I've been maintaining tracking Fedora kernel builds at
http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/linux-libre/

. Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of a
fedora-freedom "virtual" package, that Requires: linux-libre and
Conflicts: with any Fedora package known to contain software (firmware
included) that does not respect the 4 freedoms established in the Free
Software definition. AFAIK these would pretty much amount to the
standard non-Free kernel and a bunch of *-firmware packages, but there
could be sub-packages to cover other debatable packages with obscure
source code, dubious licensing policies, etc.

I realize these packages should probably be submitted for inclusion
through the regular package submission process, but I was advised to
discuss linux-libre in FESCo first, and the second is closely related
and has no upstream.

I'm a bit hesitant, for these appear to be more of policy than
engineering issues, and my understanding is that the board is in
charge of such decisions. Anyhow, it (hopefully :-) wouldn't hurt for
the board to get recommendations from engineering in this regard,
assuming my understanding as to how policy decisions are made is
correct.

Please let me know whether this is a suitable topic for discussion in
tomorrow's meeting, and I'll do my best to be there, i.e., save for
unforeseeable issues or ISP LoQoS I've been subject to recently :-/
the L in LoQoS is for Lack, in case it's not obvious :-)

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting
 

On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:20:39 -0300
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:

> On May 21, 2008, Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> > You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to
> > this mail and I'll add it to the schedule.
>
> Given that Freedom² is a major fedora feature, I'd like to discuss
> enabling the creation of Fedora spins containing exclusively Free
> Software. These are related sub-topics:
>
> . Permission to distribute under the mark 'Fedora' spins containing
> kernel-libre packages, whose sole difference from identically-numbered
> Fedora kernel builds is the removal of a few pieces of non-Free
> Software.

All spins must be composed of packages that are contained within the
Fedora repositories. kernel-libre does not fit that category (today).

> . Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of the
> kernel-libre package, a 100% Free Software variant of the kernel
> Linux, that I've been maintaining tracking Fedora kernel builds at
> http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/linux-libre/

We've had this discussion. We aren't going to allow a forked kernel
package. Please work with the kernel team to integrate this into the
main kernel package.

> . Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of a
> fedora-freedom "virtual" package, that Requires: linux-libre and
> Conflicts: with any Fedora package known to contain software (firmware
> included) that does not respect the 4 freedoms established in the Free
> Software definition. AFAIK these would pretty much amount to the
> standard non-Free kernel and a bunch of *-firmware packages, but there
> could be sub-packages to cover other debatable packages with obscure
> source code, dubious licensing policies, etc.

You don't need a package. Make a comps group.

> I realize these packages should probably be submitted for inclusion
> through the regular package submission process, but I was advised to
> discuss linux-libre in FESCo first, and the second is closely related
> and has no upstream.
>
> I'm a bit hesitant, for these appear to be more of policy than
> engineering issues, and my understanding is that the board is in
> charge of such decisions. Anyhow, it (hopefully :-) wouldn't hurt for
> the board to get recommendations from engineering in this regard,
> assuming my understanding as to how policy decisions are made is
> correct.
>
> Please let me know whether this is a suitable topic for discussion in
> tomorrow's meeting, and I'll do my best to be there, i.e., save for
> unforeseeable issues or ISP LoQoS I've been subject to recently :-/
> the L in LoQoS is for Lack, in case it's not obvious :-)

I think we can certainly discuss it. However I believe the biggest
hurdle to what you propose is the extra kernel-libre package. Your
overall proposal hinges on that, and the way you've stated you would
like to provide it has been frowned upon quite a bit.

josh

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting
 

I didn't mean to start the discussion here. Is this normal procedure?

On May 21, 2008, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:20:39 -0300
> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:

>> On May 21, 2008, Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>
>> > You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to
>> > this mail and I'll add it to the schedule.
>>
>> Given that Freedom² is a major fedora feature, I'd like to discuss
>> enabling the creation of Fedora spins containing exclusively Free
>> Software. These are related sub-topics:
>>
>> . Permission to distribute under the mark 'Fedora' spins containing
>> kernel-libre packages, whose sole difference from identically-numbered
>> Fedora kernel builds is the removal of a few pieces of non-Free
>> Software.

> All spins must be composed of packages that are contained within the
> Fedora repositories. kernel-libre does not fit that category (today).

IOW, you oppose the idea of making an exception to enable people to
distribute spins of Fedora with the Freedom² feature in it?

>> . Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of the
>> kernel-libre package, a 100% Free Software variant of the kernel
>> Linux, that I've been maintaining tracking Fedora kernel builds at
>> http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/linux-libre/

> We've had this discussion. We aren't going to allow a forked kernel
> package.

We're talking about a different package here. This is not a fork.
Call it a branch if you must label it to achieve the purpose of
denying freedom to Fedora users.

> Please work with the kernel team to integrate this into the
> main kernel package.

I believe I've already explained why I can't do that. I refuse to
distribute non-Free Software, and posting a patch that removes these
bits amounts to posting those very bits.

Now, how about *you* work with the Fedora team to provide Fedora users
with one of its advertised features? I wouldn't mind if you took the
xdelta or the tarball or the srpm I created, that provides Fedora
users with freedom, and took it upstream. But both of us know
upstream doesn't want that and doesn't care about the freedom that
Fedora claims to care about. How do we get out of this conundrum?

Admit that Fedora is not about Freedom, such that I move on and stop
trying to achieve the stated goal, or actually work to at least enable
users to enjoy this stated goal?

>> . Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of a
>> fedora-freedom "virtual" package, that Requires: linux-libre and
>> Conflicts: with any Fedora package known to contain software (firmware
>> included) that does not respect the 4 freedoms established in the Free
>> Software definition. AFAIK these would pretty much amount to the
>> standard non-Free kernel and a bunch of *-firmware packages, but there
>> could be sub-packages to cover other debatable packages with obscure
>> source code, dubious licensing policies, etc.

> You don't need a package. Make a comps group.

One of us is missing something. How would a comps group prevent the
accidental installation of say non-Free kernel or firmware packages
brought in through unintended dependencies, for a user who wants to
make sure no such software is installed, for example?

> I think we can certainly discuss it. However I believe the biggest
> hurdle to what you propose is the extra kernel-libre package.

I suppose you're talking about disk space. I sympathize with that,
but I don't see that a few additional megabytes out of a multiple-DVDs
distro is can be so much of a problem, especially when it brings us
closer to offering our users the *option* of getting one of the
features we advertise most prominently.

> Your overall proposal hinges on that, and the way you've stated you
> would like to provide it has been frowned upon quite a bit.

And largely misunderstood while at that. Not by everyone who objected
to it, for sure.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting
 

On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 18:21 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I believe I've already explained why I can't do that. I refuse to
> distribute non-Free Software, and posting a patch that removes these
> bits amounts to posting those very bits.

Really, that's a stupid objection. Just post it in ed form.

Kernel-libre is a very bad plan; just help move the firmware which
offends you out of the kernel instead.

--
dwmw2

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting
 

On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 22:25 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 18:21 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > I believe I've already explained why I can't do that. I refuse to
> > distribute non-Free Software, and posting a patch that removes these
> > bits amounts to posting those very bits.
>
> Really, that's a stupid objection. Just post it in ed form.
>
> Kernel-libre is a very bad plan; just help move the firmware which
> offends you out of the kernel instead.

This is one of those rare (and yet, wonderful) occasions upon which I
entirely agree with David. ;)

~spot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting
 

On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 16:20 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 21, 2008, Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> . Permission to distribute under the mark 'Fedora' spins containing
> kernel-libre packages, whose sole difference from identically-numbered
> Fedora kernel builds is the removal of a few pieces of non-Free
> Software.

I've gone ahead and add the kernel-libre topic to the schedule for
tomorrow. I've put it at the end of the agenda though, since I want to
make sure we get to the other items on the schedule before we begin this
discussion (since I'm guessing it will be fairly lengthy).

Later,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org>

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting
 

On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:21:41 -0300
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:

> I didn't mean to start the discussion here. Is this normal procedure?

Sure. Any email is open for discussion.

> On May 21, 2008, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:20:39 -0300
> > Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >> On May 21, 2008, Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to
> >> > this mail and I'll add it to the schedule.
> >>
> >> Given that Freedom² is a major fedora feature, I'd like to discuss
> >> enabling the creation of Fedora spins containing exclusively Free
> >> Software. These are related sub-topics:
> >>
> >> . Permission to distribute under the mark 'Fedora' spins containing
> >> kernel-libre packages, whose sole difference from identically-numbered
> >> Fedora kernel builds is the removal of a few pieces of non-Free
> >> Software.
>
> > All spins must be composed of packages that are contained within the
> > Fedora repositories. kernel-libre does not fit that category (today).
>
> IOW, you oppose the idea of making an exception to enable people to
> distribute spins of Fedora with the Freedom² feature in it?

Yes.

> >> . Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of the
> >> kernel-libre package, a 100% Free Software variant of the kernel
> >> Linux, that I've been maintaining tracking Fedora kernel builds at
> >> http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/linux-libre/
>
> > We've had this discussion. We aren't going to allow a forked kernel
> > package.
>
> We're talking about a different package here. This is not a fork.
> Call it a branch if you must label it to achieve the purpose of
> denying freedom to Fedora users.

Ok, then I'll call it an alternate kernel package. Which we still
aren't going to allow.

> > Please work with the kernel team to integrate this into the
> > main kernel package.
>
> I believe I've already explained why I can't do that. I refuse to
> distribute non-Free Software, and posting a patch that removes these
> bits amounts to posting those very bits.

So work with upstream to get them removed or pushed to separate
firmware packages.

> Now, how about *you* work with the Fedora team to provide Fedora users
> with one of its advertised features? I wouldn't mind if you took the
> xdelta or the tarball or the srpm I created, that provides Fedora
> users with freedom, and took it upstream. But both of us know
> upstream doesn't want that and doesn't care about the freedom that
> Fedora claims to care about. How do we get out of this conundrum?

Given your preference to not work in a manner which would be compatible
with Fedora Engineering practices, I'm not sure there is a way out.
However perhaps you can enlist some help from someone that would be
willing to do that.

> Admit that Fedora is not about Freedom, such that I move on and stop
> trying to achieve the stated goal, or actually work to at least enable
> users to enjoy this stated goal?

I think that's hyperbole. I also think the firmware rules we have in
place are fair and beneficial for most users.

I have no problems with you working towards your goal. As I said
before, I commend it. However doing that with an alternative kernel
package isn't something that sits well.

> >> . Inclusion in Fedora (future and recent past releases) of a
> >> fedora-freedom "virtual" package, that Requires: linux-libre and
> >> Conflicts: with any Fedora package known to contain software (firmware
> >> included) that does not respect the 4 freedoms established in the Free
> >> Software definition. AFAIK these would pretty much amount to the
> >> standard non-Free kernel and a bunch of *-firmware packages, but there
> >> could be sub-packages to cover other debatable packages with obscure
> >> source code, dubious licensing policies, etc.
>
> > You don't need a package. Make a comps group.
>
> One of us is missing something. How would a comps group prevent the
> accidental installation of say non-Free kernel or firmware packages
> brought in through unintended dependencies, for a user who wants to
> make sure no such software is installed, for example?

Fine, a fair point. Create a Free spin via a kickstart file. Having
that virtual package is more pain to maintain than a ks file and sort
of goes against how we tend to do things.

> > I think we can certainly discuss it. However I believe the biggest
> > hurdle to what you propose is the extra kernel-libre package.
>
> I suppose you're talking about disk space. I sympathize with that,

Hardly. I'm talking about having any alternate kernel, period.

> > Your overall proposal hinges on that, and the way you've stated you
> > would like to provide it has been frowned upon quite a bit.
>
> And largely misunderstood while at that. Not by everyone who objected
> to it, for sure.

I don't think there's been a large misunderstanding. Simply two
differing opinions on the matter.

josh

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting
 

On May 21, 2008, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 18:21 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I believe I've already explained why I can't do that. I refuse to
>> distribute non-Free Software, and posting a patch that removes these
>> bits amounts to posting those very bits.

> Really, that's a stupid objection. Just post it in ed form.

Assuming that's acceptable upstream. I sort of doubt it, but then, I
could send xdeltas as well, and if you've been part of the discussion,
then you probably know that that's not the only reason why I can't
take part in this plan.

Another I still haven't mentioned is that I have no interest in being
harrassed and verbally abused like the last discussion about freedom
issues I got into there.


Now, let me show you why this proposed plan is an impossible mission
that people are trying to drive me into. Consider this snippet from
http://www.fsfla.org/svn/fsfla/software/linux-libre/scripts/deblob-2.6.25

# SND_KORG1212 - Korg 1212 IO
clean_ifdef sound/pci/korg1212/korg1212.c CONFIG_SND_KORG1212_FIRMWARE_IN_KERNEL
clean_blob sound/pci/korg1212/korg1212-firmware.h

# SND_MAESTRO3 - ESS Allegro/Maestro3
clean_ifdef sound/pci/maestro3.c CONFIG_SND_MAESTRO3_FIRMWARE_IN_KERNEL

# SND_YMFPCI - Yamaha YMF724/740/744/754
clean_blob sound/pci/ymfpci/ymfpci_image.h
clean_ifdef sound/pci/ymfpci/ymfpci_main.c CONFIG_SND_YMFPCI_FIRMWARE_IN_KERNEL

clean_blob() removes long sequences of numbers, whereas clean_ifdef()
runs unifdef on the named file assuming the named variable is
undefined.

Could you honestly tell me, with a straight face and a reasonable
degree of assurance, that a patch that performs these actions stands
any chance whatsoever of being accepted upstream?

The firmwares are already optional to compile in, they can already be
loaded with the standard firmware loading machinery.

But while they're there, in the source code, distributing the kernel
sources amounts to distributing this non-Free Software, and
distributing binaries built out of these sources, even with these
options disabled, amounts to distributing the this non-Free Software
as part of the kernel sources or committing to distributing it over
the next 3 years. One way or another, it amounts to propagating the
problem.

If you tell me with a straight face that something like this stands a
chance of being accepted, I will give that a try. Otherwise, please
stop sending me in a mission that can't possibly be accomplished in a
way that achieves our shared goals of providing users with freedom,
with an operating system built out of only Free Software.

If Fedora cares about users' freedom, why would it follow and abide by
policies and dubious legal theories set by someone who doesn't and is
proud of it?

Does anyone think the issue about non-Free firmwares is any different
from the issue of non-Free drivers for nvidia cards, except for the
irrelevant detail that these different pieces of software can corrupt
the system (technically and morally) running on different CPUs?
Seriously?

Why do we bend over to keep compatibility and even distribute
binary-only code published by with vendors who have taken dubious
measures such as releasing code under the GPL without sources, or
explicitly contributing, to the kernel Linux, code under licenses
incompatible with its license, when an alternative is readily
available and looking forward to being included and with an active
maintainer that has already proved to be able to keep up even with
daily rawhide builds, and at the same time we proudly defend the
decision to ship X drivers that disregard (for good reasons)
compatibility with non-Free code?

What is it that appears to make these issues different? Is nVidia any
less supportive to our community than any of the other vendors who
push hardware and then push non-Free Software to enable their
customers to use the hardware at full power? Aren't we forgetting
something, or drawing a line at a point that is absolutely arbitrary
(which might be fine) and not in sync with our mission (with is
certainly not fine)?

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting
 

On May 21, 2008, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, then I'll call it an alternate kernel package. Which we still
> aren't going to allow.

> However doing that with an alternative kernel
> package isn't something that sits well.

> I'm talking about having any alternate kernel, period.

I have never opposed the idea of replacing the non-Free kernel Fedora
ships today with linux-libre or any of its predecessors. I just
thought proposing it as an alternative that I offered to maintain
myself would generate less heat. Maybe I was mistaken.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list