From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.0.7-1.1.fc4 Firefox/1.0.7 Description of problem: Hello, This request is made on behalf of the linux-ntfs project listed at the above URL. Yes, I am fully aware of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems and the statement regarding inclusion of the ntfs driver in Core. Before this request is turned down outright could everyone please consider the following: 1. RHEL and Fedora are the last remaining distribution/s not to include the NTFS driver. Does the lack of legal action against other distributions not set a legal precedent? 2. Inclusion of the NTFS kernel module in Extras would surely shift some burden of responsibility from RH and leave the decision of NTFS support in the users hands, whilst providing an easier route through default YUM repos to getting that support should it be required. ie. RH/Fedora are not shipping support in Core and therefore distancing themselves a little from any concerns they may have. Fundamentally, can this be considered an acceptable compromise? 3. An awful lot of time (developer time) is spent packaging RPMS - if buildsys can handle this then they can get on with more important stuff. Hint, hint, write support, hint, hint. I realise this is not the reason the RFC was published however I recognised the opportunity when it arose and as a boundary to cross-platform compatibility for users migrating I feel this alterative to straight kernel inclusion should be given some serious thought. In answer to the other questions, this would be GPL and obviously the reason it is not in mainline (Fedora mainline that is) is for those mentioned numerous times previously. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): kernel-module-ntfs-$(uname -r) How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: See above. Additional info:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems clearly states thats ntfs is not allowed. the same reasons for ntfs support not being in core also effect extras. i would suggest you look at a third party repo possibly livna.
Already in Livna: http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/4/i386/RPMS.lvn/repodata/repoview/kernel-module-ntfs-2.6.14-1.1656_FC4-0-2.1.22-0.lvn.3.4.html I guess Christopher knows about that, but was hoping that Extras might reconsider ntfs (he did acknowledgement the existence of that page). I guess a better place to open that discussion would be on fedora-extras-list, but I wouldn't hold out much hope if it's already been through once with the Red Hat legal team. The only difference about it being in livna is that people have to jump through the extra hoop of downloading the livna-release rpm to set it up. Some of the same maintainers of Extras work on Livna.
(In reply to comment #2) > Already in Livna: > > http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/4/i386/RPMS.lvn/repodata/repoview/kernel-module-ntfs-2.6.14-1.1656_FC4-0-2.1.22-0.lvn.3.4.html > > I guess Christopher knows about that, I meant the forbidden items page (not the Livna page) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems
In reply to Comment #1 I was hoping that instead of an outright "no this wont work" people would be willing to re-visit the possibility of the inclusion of ntfs support. Also remember mono was also listed under forbidden items until recently so I do not consider it a be all and end all. I am of course aware of third party repos such as livna and the excellent job they do etc etc. however my hope is that by NOT shipping with core and instead using a kernel module in extras we could compromise a little. Remember, the code is not a wrapper for some ntfs driver, it is GPL'd and written and available due to the damn hard work of some fine developers. If we are to reject inclusion of NTFS support in the kernel then by dint we should also be removing FAT support (see recently upheld patents on this baby) and SAMBA should also give us cause for concern as it was developed using similar methods. Regards Chris
(In reply to comment #4) > In reply to Comment #1 I was hoping that instead of an outright "no this wont > work" people would be willing to re-visit the possibility of the inclusion of > ntfs support. > > Also remember mono was also listed under forbidden items until recently so I do > not consider it a be all and end all. I am of course aware of third party repos > such as livna and the excellent job they do etc etc. however my hope is that by > NOT shipping with core and instead using a kernel module in extras we could > compromise a little. > > Remember, the code is not a wrapper for some ntfs driver, it is GPL'd and > written and available due to the damn hard work of some fine developers. If we > are to reject inclusion of NTFS support in the kernel then by dint we should > also be removing FAT support (see recently upheld patents on this baby) and > SAMBA should also give us cause for concern as it was developed using similar > methods. > > Regards > Chris ForbiddenItems mentioned mono as a open issue which has now been resolved. NTFS has already been excluded by the counsel. Apparently FAT, Samba etc are different from the legal standpoint.Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLegalIssues for some of the details. If you wish to discuss this further kindly bring it to the fedora-extras list or contact the legal gateway http://fedora.redhat.com/About/contact.html gdk AT fedoraproject.org
(In reply to comment #4) > In reply to Comment #1 I was hoping that instead of an outright "no this wont > work" people would be willing to re-visit the possibility of the inclusion of > ntfs support. For what it's worth, I agree, I would prefer to see ntfs in Extras, for convenience. However bugzilla entry is probably not the best place to have a discussion in general (even though this is posted to the fedora-extras-list) unless it specifically about packaging related methods. http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/bug-tracker.html#bug-tracker-mailing-list-interaction I would leave open this bug post your spec file/SRPM, open up a new thread on fedora-extras-list discussing reconsidering ntfs support in Extras and post a link back here to the bug pointing out the Package Review submission.
(In reply to comment #5) > ForbiddenItems mentioned mono as a open issue which has now been resolved. NTFS > has already been excluded by the counsel. Apparently FAT, Samba etc are > different from the legal standpoint.Refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems and > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLegalIssues for some of the details. (Running the risk of not following my own advice and avoiding discussion). Nevertheless it would be nice to have a more detail rationale from the Red Hat legal counsel about exactly how NTFS is in and FAT than the note there now: "Microsoft has a number of patents around NTFS. Because of these issues, counsel feels that adding ntfs support runs the risk of significantly endangering the project." Anyway last post from me (will followup on the mailing list).
(In reply to comment #4) > [...] > however my hope is that by > NOT shipping with core and instead using a kernel module in extras we could > compromise a little. Well, normally the same rules apply for Fedora Extras and Fedora Core. For that reason a "compromise" like that makes no real sense afaics. Either it is allowed (then it's easier for everyone to enable it in the .config in the kernel from Core) or not (then it is forbidden in both Core and Extras). Rahul said all the other important things in #5
Submitted request to gdk as suggested by Rahul - better late than never.