Comment Re: Why has it taken [all] this long? (Score 1) 140
No secret deals, double or otherwise. Fedora does not work like that.
No secret deals, double or otherwise. Fedora does not work like that.
There is currently some support for this in GNOME (and therefore Fedora Workstation), but it's rudimentary. Some technical bits about this here: https://wiki.gnome.org/HowDoI/.... A lot of the software just wasn't made for it, though, so it's going to be a bit of a bumpy road.
This is basically due to a misconception around the Fedora release policy. Some projects work on a strict calendar basis; others work on "release when ready". Fedora has always had a hybrid approach. We aim for a certain target, but we're integrating a huge amount of upstream software over which we mostly have little control, and it's almost inevitable that something isn't up to standards at that time.
PS: We're slipping a week for F23.
Fedora 24 will be next May; we don't really do point releases, but I guess if you apply patches sometime in July you could call it Fedora 24 1/4.
I thought it might be just the summary, but I read TFA. What in the world are we talking about here? This is slashdot, not the evening news or something. Is "app slicing" a fancy word for "we only give you the bits you need for your architecture?"
It depends on whether they plan to use this feature to sell more TVs.
Merely allowing the site to be accessed through the product features is not commercial by itself, but if the links are included by default in a prominent place (and we know they will), that counts as product placement and branding; and it can definitely be considered a commercial purpose - people pay money to that kind of placement.
I'm not saying that this interpretation is necessarily wrong, but... it's quite wide in scope. It seems like you are saying that not only would hosting NC content on a site with ads be disallowed, but that merely prominently linking to such content from a site with ads would be disallowed, as would any advertising for any commercial software or hardware which implied that NC content could be accessed.
Furthermore, the suggestion that if some people sometimes pay for a particular activity, then all instances of that activity must be commercial in nature -- wow, now that has some implications!
This is exactly the problem with "NC". To you, this is "clear commercial use". Is it because a big company is involved? Two companies? We assume money is changing hands, but... maybe it's not. The license says "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation". What if the money goes towards "supporting the community"? What exactly is "commercial advantage" in this context? I'd have to ask a lawyer, and... unless I was paying them to advise on a specific case, I doubt they'd actually give a straight answer.
Overall, "noncommercial" licenses are problematic and should be avoided. I understand the intention, but it's hard to make a license that actually gets there.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra