The principle you are citing is part of the definition of an Open Source Definition by the OSI organization. That doesn’t mean a project must adopt whatever technology to be considered Free Software or Open Source. There are multiple examples of technologies that Fedora project decided not to adopt for multiple reasons.
The argument risks expanding a negative freedom into a positive obligation, which isn’t implied by the OSD.
And to be precise regarding the OSD, you are always free to Fork any Fedora project and integrate whatever you want within it or use Fedora projects to any endeavour even if the maintainer disagrees. So I do not think the argument is compelling here as accepting the premise “you shouldn’t restrict fields of endeavour” the conclusion of “Fedora should accept or endorse technologies” doesn’t logically follow[1].
Agree 100%.
Even if the field of endeavor is part of the consideration, the decision here is about whether Fedora should align itself with and promote that field as a project objective, not about restricting others from pursuing it. I can see two different topics being mixed together as a single one.
-
All the technical work you already mentioned on the proposal. Like creating a new kernel-module RPM, include user-friendly tools common to various AI back-ends, provide a contribution guide, etc.
-
Make this a Fedora objective, that is Fedora project as a whole will focus on the success and promotion of this.
I don’t see significant opposition to 1).
AFAICS, the concerns are on 2). Fedora has decided multiple times to avoid making other stuff their objective for multiple reasons. Sometimes due to the nature of the technology, sometimes for legal reasons and sometimes because people didn’t think it was feasible to do it.
This is not a question of whether people are free to work in a given field of endeavor. The question is whether Fedora, as a project, should associate its identity and priorities with that field.