Rodrigo Padula wrote: That wasn't even accepted as a slogan formally. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-adf31c383612aac31... FSF position on this seems to be rather inconsistent to me since they have endorsed certain distributions as Free even if they include such firmware in the kernel inherited from upstream. Rahul

Gregory Maxwell wrote: See http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions. All the distributions except maybe gNewSense (I asked for more information but didn't get any detailed response) have such firmware in them. They have already been informed personally by me on several occasions and they haven't fixed it. You might want to do some cross checking yourself before making claims. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis The in-kernel firmware? It's not a easy process. See Fedora Advisory Board list archives for details. Rahul

Bryan J. Smith wrote: The line to draw is difficult to determine. Would that include documentation, fonts, images etc? Everything is 100% redistributable already and will always be. Absolutely. RHEL now has the highest possible security level certification that any operating system ever has got out of the box without the need for creating a separate fork. Without technologies like SELinux and the ability of a open community to merge these very disruptive changes fairly well that would be pretty much impossible. Rahul

Firmware IS SOFTWARE!! firmware = software The FSF considers firmware as software. If the firmware isnt free, the Fedora isnt FREE!! We can't change the firmware, then the firmware isn't FREE!! Where are the Infinite Freedom ? Freedom to change the Code, to change the firmware!! Please, read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware "*firmware* is software" Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira www.projetofedora.org On 6/19/07, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; wrote:

The question is not purely technique, is philosophical! The philosophy is the base of our work! If the Free Software Foundation says that the use of non free firmwares affect our freedom, us must take this in consideration when including this in the distribution. If the firmware isn't free or "modifiable", if we dont have this permission our freedom is not infinite, it is finite. I think that firmwares would not have to be distributed in fedora Medias (CDS, DVDS). We use the "Infinite Freedom" as slogan, we must follow the recommendations of the FSF, not including non free firmwares. Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira http://www.projetofedora.org On 6/19/07, Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org&gt; wrote:

Sigh. I'm tired of the gross ignorance on this subject. Furthermore, there are different types of "firmwares." Most are not only GPL compatible "bundlings," but 100% redistributable and compatible with Fedora's guidelines too. I deploy AMCC/3Ware true hardware RAID cards. 3Ware bundles firmware updates in its drivers. Before they did this, one had to boot DOS or Windows to update firmware. 3Ware's Escalade series was the first ATA RAID card to have a full GPL driver (in 2.2.15+). The Linux kernel doesn't use the firmware at all, it's for the on-board PPC400 of the hardware RAID card! So unless Fedora starts bundling a _full GCC _cross-compiler_ and related toolchain for a PPC4xx target (that'll add a few hundred MBs), one can_not_ build the firmware "from source" on a Fedora distro anyway! Same goes for many other "intelligent" firmware - even down to the on-board Intelligent Drive Electronics (IDE) of ATA/ATAPI devices (should hard drive/optical vendors ever start offering to bundle their firmware updates - especially for ATAPI DVD drives). After a few ARMs and other microcontrollers, you'd be talking a few GBs of toolchains! For those that disagree, are *YOU* going to maintain those? If not, who? Does Red Hat buy Montavista or TimeSys or some other company and basically _dedicate_ them to maintaining these toolchains? And who does the Q&A when the driver won't build because there's slight toolchain differences in various sev setups? Case-in-point: For those that are still against it, do you even _remotely_understand_ what I'm talking about? In not, don't try to say or otherwise promote what you think the FSF is saying. Don't bother to argue against what you don't understand. This issue is for kernel developers and their copyrights, companies and their hardware products, and countless other developers. Linus have repeatedly gone on record what is defined as a "derived work" of Linux as well as "bundled software" even outside of that. If the firmware works, unmodified, on another OS, it's not derived from Linux. If the firmware is not required for operation, then it's bundled. Hell, even the GPL has exceptions for basic hardware firmware. Otherwise the PC BIOS, Intel EFI and other components would have to be GPL. -- Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:12:44 To:For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base <fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc:b.j.smith@ieee.org Subject: Re: Infinite Freedom??? Rodrigo Padula wrote: Like I said FSF has endorsed several distributions which has such firmware in the kernel http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions We don't have any official slogans for Fedora either FYI. Our freedoms have always been finite. Rahul

Hey Rodrigo, While your input and enthusiasm is appreciated and in the right spirit, I think in this instance you need to take a step back and realize the practicality (or lack thereof) of what you're suggesting. You've been told the current stance on the subject and given a good justification for why it is currently as such, so perhaps we shouldn't push the issue much further. Regards, Steve On 6/19/07, Rodrigo Padula <rodrigopadula(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 <caillon(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: I had problens with my mail server projetofedora.org The FSF disagree of you! Ok!! Thanks! Fedora FINITE FREEDOM! "Voice of community" Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira http://www.projetofedora.org

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 based on the sheer majority over engineers and lawyers. And that can quickly and grossly proliferated by the community, often by even quasi-professionals (e.g., paralegals, not lawyers, including Groklaw most of the time, technicians, not technologists and engineers, etc...). As an example ... Unlike most people, who grew up on GNU/Linux in the mid-'90s doing web servers, I grew up developing on GNU/Linux - coming from GNU/Solaris host, GNU/VxWorks targets (in addition to Linux NIS, LDAP, Kerberos, Samba, NFS, AFS deployments before the "single-sign-on" buzzword came about). Now what did I use those things for? I worked on evolutionary defense systems that replaced and improved upon already existing systems." These new systems - strategically referred to as TMD - were PAC-3 and THAAD, which use HTK, which neutralize targets an order of magnitude better than proximity-fuse. Some of you may not know what those acronyms stand for, and I purposely did that for a reason. Because as long as I don't define those acronyms, and you don't know them, you don't have your 0-technical-based opinion. But the second I define those acronyms into Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3), Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) and Hit-to-Kill (HTK), I'll start getting opinions like ... - I heard hit-to-kill doesn't work - I heard Patriot never hit a single SCUD in the first Iraq war And if I further define their collective, strategic name - even though they are just advanced Surface to Air Missile (SAM) systems for shooting down aircraft., cruise missiles and other airborne targets, They are also capable of "last resort" Theater Missile Defense (TMD), I get all sorts of non-sense like: - The US wants to start a new cold war - The US is threatening the Russians and upsetting the balance in Europe - The US is violating the ABM treaty, etc... Even before the general W. or US bashing begins. I mean, I didn't even vote for W. and TMD was developed during, and the R&D funded by (including my paycheck), by the Clinton administration. But because people heard "missile defense" - like they do firmware - the go bonkers with 0 technical knowledge, Now I can't even begin to explain such technical things as ... - How TMD is the natural evolution of air defense and just a more capable SAM system of equal size - PAC-3/THAAD interceptors and their attributes don't even cross into the velocities of what the ABM treaty covers - TMD systems are merely improved, mobile interceptor and sensory (radar) systems of what is already deployed by NATO in Europe - And why we developed HTK, because Patriot did actually intercept, but it's proximity fuse would not neutralize And that's before we get to the fact that I was one of the engineering schmucks on the target systems, doing telemetry and other things I'm talking about, to verify PAC-3/THAAD intercept and effectiveness. I'm the guy that had to go home at night and here the blatantly incorrect statements from the media. I mean, ever wonder why NATO has or is deploying PAC-3 and THAAD (or Japan and Korea for that matter)? Ever wonder why *NOT* one single US engineer has ever "whistle-blown" that HTK and TMD doesn't work? Have you ever wondered what the *REAL*, technical details *ARE* of general air-space defense, and why it's not so "unnatural" to be able to obliterate and shred anything that flies through it? Same deal for "firmware"!!! It's funny, NASA (of which I've worked on the USAF portions, which I can't talk about), calls "hit-to-kill" something different. It's called "docking." Sure, it looks nice and slow on TV - but you don't get to see the closure prior to that at Mach 24. With TMD, we're talking sub-orbital and half to one-third that speed - we just do it in real-time today. Ignorance goes quite far with the majority, let alone people call me "biased" on firmware because I worked on "missile defense." Just like many non-developers complain I'm "biased" because I work for a client that selfishly sells, what appears to them to be an overpriced, $10,000 VoIP phone. And, therefore, I should have no say, since these people are obvious "less biased" as myself, and I'm just being "arrogant" when I say they have to be knowlegable and experienced in the filed to understand (I don't really care whether they have an EE degree or not, but experienced, yes). Now don't get me (or anyone in the IEEE for that matter), started on electric or fuel-cell (hydrogen) cars in the US. I mean, I've literally had someone saying they can "chuck big oil, coal, fossil fuels, etc..." and "save the planet" once they buy a new Honda fuel-cell vehicle and the home, hydrogen electolysis unit. Being the "dumber than them" electrical engineer I am, I can't help but ask them, "where do you get that electricity to drive than unit, and how much and what energies do you think are used to generate it?" Of course, that just gets me into another debate where I'm talking about real power systems and the need to renovate and really, feasinbly "clean" the US power grid (as you'll find 180,000 IEEE-USA members screaming for in every other Spectrum magazine), all while the other person, who I've stupidly tried to educate, screams at me about the tangable "renewable energies" that we stupid engineers won't design and build. Sorry for the tangent. It's just the story of those with the background and experience to deliver real solutions from those who "know better than us" and think we're wrong, let alone arrogant, when we tell them we're working on a feasible solution, but they won't stop to remotely understand it. -- Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: "Rodrigo Padula" <rodrigopadula(a)gmail.com&gt; Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:58:28 To:"For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base" <fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com&gt; Subject: Re: Infinite Freedom??? Ok!!!!<br><br><div id="result_box" dir="ltr">Reading the answers i see how the VOICE of the community is heard and is &quot;very important&quot; in the project! </div><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/20/07, <b class="gmail_sendername"> Christopher Aillon</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:caillon@redhat.com">caillon@redhat.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Rodrigo Padula wrote:<br>&gt; If the Free Software Foundation says that the use of non free firmwares<br>&gt; affect our freedom, us must take this in consideration when including this<br>&gt; in the distribution.<br><br> We did.<br><br>&gt; If the firmware isn&#39;t free or &quot;modifiable&quot;, if we dont have this permission<br>&gt; our freedom is not infinite, it is finite.<br><br>...says the person behind a <a href="http://gmail.com"> gmail.com</a> address.&nbsp;&nbsp;Please go complain to<br>google, too.</blockquote><div><br>I had problens with my mail server <a href="http://projetofedora.org">projetofedora.org</a></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> &gt; I think that firmwares would not have to be distributed in fedora Medias<br>&gt; (CDS, DVDS).<br><br>Thanks for your opinion.&nbsp;&nbsp;We disagree.</blockquote><div><br>The FSF disagree of you!<br><br>Ok!! Thanks!<br><br>Fedora FINITE FREEDOM!&nbsp; &quot;Voice of community&quot; <br><br>Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira<br><a href="http://www.projetofedora.org">http://www.projetofedora.org</a><br></div></div> -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Rodrigo Padula wrote: 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 "official" policies. No one will *ever* agree with all of them. 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? It means that you, Rodrigo, can build your own version of Fedora that *does not* include the pieces to which you object. And if you submit this version for board approval as an "official" Fedora release, I'm pretty sure you'd get it. But you have to do the work of maintaining it... and you have to deal with the complaints when other people don't agree with *your* policies. :) --g -- Greg DeKoenigsberg Community Development Manager Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255 "To whomsoever much hath been given... ...from him much shall be asked"

On 6/20/07, Greg Dekoenigsberg <gdk(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: I am thinking about this. Create one Brazilian spin ! Thanks to all for the attention! Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira www.projetofedora.org

On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 14:58 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: Who should actually approve different spins as being "Formally Fedora"? /me likes the audio pun in that title, and it is more accurate than the abused word 'official' I'll be honest -- I don't mind that there be a Board rubber stamp [Formally Fedora Spin], but it needs to be just that -- a rubber stamp approval on top of a recommendation from a group of people who can actually vet the individual distro. Perhaps I see a flood of such requests. Perhaps I personally fear the work of figuring out how to automate the testing of such requests. Based on the new understanding of the Board's role, shouldn't it be the Board says, "Fedora needs to formally recognize new community-sourced spins that are within Fedora guidelines," and FESCo makes it so? Presumably by firing up a SIG, modifying some build sys magic, and so forth. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Karsten Wade wrote: This is not a bad idea at all. I'd gladly volunteer for such a SIG. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip

On 6/20/07, Karsten Wade <kwade(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: I Agree!! I'm a brazilian voice, with bad english here! hehehe In this case, members of the same community as you have spoken up and 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 ? My $0,02 Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira Brazilian Fedora Ambassador www.projetofedora.org

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Unless you make a spin that doesn't have that trademarked content, of course. Which is also (a) possible and (b) encouraged. We still haven't figured out what exact language we should be using to describe the relationship between Fedora and such a distribution -- but I'd like to see some test cases to help us figure it out. --g -- Greg DeKoenigsberg Community Development Manager Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255 "To whomsoever much hath been given... ...from him much shall be asked"

On 6/20/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote: Remove non free firmwares from fedora packages and kernel! But it's only a idea! I have many extra work organizing Brazilian Fedora Project, spreading fedora, presenting lectures and events around Brazil, helping members of the Latin America countries, attending Brazilian Free Media Project and enlisting local collaborators! I have worked to make fedora one of the used linux distributions in Brazil. Here, we have big cases of use of Fedora. - Universities (Hundreds servers and workstations with fedora core 4,5,6) - Brazilian Armys (Hundreds servers and workstations with fedora core 5,6) - SERPRO (More than 8.000 workstations with fedora core 5, 6) - Hosting/Access/Mail Servers ( UAI ESTADO DE MINAS - 150 fedora servers) and many others.... The fedora is a great success here in Brazil, us has made a great work here! Thanks!!! Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira

Bryan J Smith wrote: +1, *applause* Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip

Bryan J Smith 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 identifying any significant justification/payoff (and not having the time to implement in time for F7 either). -- Rex