On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 16:14 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 26 February 2015 at 15:30, Stephen Gallagher
<sgallagh(a)redhat.com
> wrote:
> This may be nitpicking, but what about the cases for things that
> ARE free and open-source, but may still be illegal in certain
> jurisdictions? (Such as patent-encumbered codecs).
I'm treating that as non-free and possibly patented. In my head I
couldn't call something "free and open source" if it's got patent
concerns that stop you using it.
> For example, installing a default MIME-type handler for files
> ending in .repo that allows GNOME Software to be launched and
> prompt you to load it if you click on such a path in a web
> browser. I think that would be in line with both statements.
I don't actually think that buys us anything in terms of usability.
You might as well just go to the website and download the foo-
release.rpm file, which is even better as it'll install the GPG key
too.
It also doesn't fix the issue that when you type "steam" into gnome-
software, nothing comes up. That's what we have to fix.
To be clear, I wasn't intending to state that this was a good solution
to the problem, merely using it as an example to represent what I
think is the intent of the Board statement.
As I said, I think it's probably worth reopening the conversation with
the Council.