They already have a floss subset. I linked to it.
Fedoraās the standard for FOSS packaging, so I guess a better question might be why Flathubās FOSS filter doesnāt match it.
Edit: Yeah forgot Debian for a sec 
but Fedora has a pretty good stance too.
Because their filter only checks the license I assume.
uhmā¦
Fedora is one opinionated view.
I would wager Debian has some differences.
There are probably commonalities. But I think its a bit holier than thou to try to claim that Fedora has achieved the optimal set of tradoffs in its guidance.
Which reminds me. I need to reach out to some friendlies at Debian and get their view on the state of things.
3 Likes
I can imagine many possible things.
If the subset concept were implemented as a set of tagsā¦ it would help.
1 Like
I donāt think there is going to be an answer here that is going to satisfy everyone.
There are bunch of different things here that need to be prioritized:
- The out of the box experience for new users
- Having software ājust worksā without having to deal with extra complexity(i.e. including codecs)
- Delivering free and unencumbered software
- Software coming from trusting packagers
- Security(Lots of aspects to this)
- Ownership and control
- Consistency across flatpaks and rpms
- Probably a lot more
Everyone has a different way in which they rate these things which is a big part of the reason that we all have different opinions on these proposals.
So, fundamentally, I guess I would ask how does Fedora prioritize the trade-offs here? Ultimately, that should be what informs the decision of how to proceed with Flathub and Fedora flatpaks.
3 Likes
I donāt think further discussion is going to work here. I would change the proposal. Instead of applying a filter, just remove the repo outright. Or at least alter the precedence in GNOME Software. Workstation Working Group notably didnāt like the filter idea either.
I doubt Fedora would actually use this subset even if created. It would just make life harder for Fedora users. We donāt normally restrict access to open source software unless required by Fedora Legal.
1 Like
Not just Fedoraās list.. but also Flathubāsā¦
but also the software UI developersā¦ because they expose flatpak capabilityā¦
But also flatpakās as a technology that is intended to be federatedā¦ its not fully there yet..conflicts exist in ways that I do not allow me to install two versions of the same application sharing an app-id (which depending on who you ask would cause breakage if changed)
The future for flatpak should be fork, branch, build, distribute in much the same way as linux containers. Linux container distribution is FULLY federated.. I can grab the postgres from both quay and docker hub..and then as a user I can choose one of the other at run time.
Discussion is straying further and further from the topic of the Change proposal. Since it has been rejected by FESCo, Iām going to close this thread. I suspect there will be follow-up discussions about the three Fs (Fedora, Flatpaks, Flathub) in other threads, but this one has run its course.
5 Likes