Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fedora: Open-source repository for long-term digital preservation

fedorarepository.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Fedora: Open-source repository for long-term digital preservation

#41

Post by supercheetah »

Andrex wrote: post #36
notpushkin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The transferable agreement stipulated that each project must display the following text on their web site: [...] Looks like Cornell-UVA satisfied this by placing it on their about page. Red Hat on the other hand hid it on a dedicated legalese page nobody will read: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/ Not a good look IMO.

Due to their comparative popularity, it makes complete sense to me. You don't have people in HN comments for a new Fedora release going "Wait is this about the Digital Access Project?" What does "not a good look" even mean in this context? Getting tired of this phrase's overuse tbh. "Think of the optics" fell into disuse and I can't wait for this one to join it.

Red Hat is the bigger party here. Their minimization of this issue seems a little like bullying.

Re: Fedora: Open-source repository for long-term digital preservation

#42

Post by cramcgrab »

billdueber wrote: post #24
cramcgrab wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were big in software for the one laptop per child project: https://www.rit.edu/news/rit-class-develops-applications-sup... And, while not open source, built this: https://dirsig.cis.rit.edu/ Also, I remember some kind of early realtime music accompaniment software, the guy played trumpet and the software played realtime accompaniment. Also, MIT built X11, which later turned into a bureaucratic exercise instead o…

Gopher came out of the U of Minnesota. Their teams are the “Golden Gophers.”

Aah yes, that’s right

Re: Fedora: Open-source repository for long-term digital preservation

#43

Post by kasabali »

Andrex wrote: post #36
notpushkin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The transferable agreement stipulated that each project must display the following text on their web site: [...] Looks like Cornell-UVA satisfied this by placing it on their about page. Red Hat on the other hand hid it on a dedicated legalese page nobody will read: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/ Not a good look IMO.

Due to their comparative popularity, it makes complete sense to me. You don't have people in HN comments for a new Fedora release going "Wait is this about the Digital Access Project?" What does "not a good look" even mean in this context? Getting tired of this phrase's overuse tbh. "Think of the optics" fell into disuse and I can't wait for this one to join it.

> What does "not a good look" even mean in this context?

it's a kind way of saying they're being assholes?

Re: Fedora: Open-source repository for long-term digital preservation

#45

Post by richardfontana »

notpushkin wrote: post #12
fodmap wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both. '...all parties settled on a co-existence agreement that stated that the Cornell-UVA project could use the name when clearly associated with open source software for digital object repository systems and that Red Hat could use the name when it was clearly associated with open source computer operating systems.' https://fedorarepository.org/about/our-history/

> The transferable agreement stipulated that each project must display the following text on their web site: [...] Looks like Cornell-UVA satisfied this by placing it on their about page. Red Hat on the other hand hid it on a dedicated legalese page nobody will read: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/ Not a good look IMO.

So first of all IAARHL (and I do a lot of work supporting Fedora) but IANARHTL. That said, I have seen the actual agreement (but many years ago), which predates my arrival at Red Hat by some years, but don't have immediate access to it and am disinclined to hunt down a copy solely because of this thread. However, my recollection of it is that it was quite a bit more specific than the Cornell-UVA paraphrase as to where the parties expected the notice to appear. My further recollection is that it was the Cornell-UVA FEDORA that was not really complying with the letter of the agreement as to that issue, rather than the Fedora Linux Fedora, essentially the opposite of what you're saying. To settle this we'd have to get the agreement and do some Wayback Machine research, which I'm also disinclined to do at the moment.

Now, as to why it's on the Fedora Legal Docs site today, that's because a few years ago we undertook a significant migration of all "legal" content from the basically deprecated Fedora Project wiki to the newly created Fedora Legal Docs site. In general, such material is now much easier to find than it was in the wiki era (where it was spread across multiple wiki pages). I don't know when the trademark notice first came to be placed on the Fedora wiki, which itself didn't always exist, but I believe when Cornell-UVA and Red Hat signed the agreement, Fedora may have still been using a redhat.com site.

Re: Fedora: Open-source repository for long-term digital preservation

#46

Post by richardfontana »

t90fan wrote: post #13
fodmap wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both. '...all parties settled on a co-existence agreement that stated that the Cornell-UVA project could use the name when clearly associated with open source software for digital object repository systems and that Red Hat could use the name when it was clearly associated with open source computer operating systems.' https://fedorarepository.org/about/our-history/

> associated with open source software for digital object repository systems and that Red Hat could use the name when it was clearly associated with open source computer operating systems.' If it's as worded, I'm surprised Fedora Directory Server didn't end up being a problem for RedHat, as its not an OS, and you could call it a digital object repository system, I guess. Or maybe thats why they re-branded it as 389 D…

I'm pretty sure it's not why it was rebranded; the timing doesn't make sense since the rebranding occurred several years after the trademark coexistence agreement.

The curious question though is why 389 was formerly called Fedora Directory Server. From what I've been told by someone who was around at the time (as I wasn't), it's because Red Hat went through a very brief period where it experimented with using the "Fedora" brand as a sort of general "upstream of Red Hat, sponsored by Red Hat" sort of community brand. This was I think quickly rejected as a bad idea but Fedora Directory Server was apparently the one (for a while) surviving example of the experiment. I imagine that the reason for the rebranding was that it was confusing to use the "Fedora" name at a certain point because the directory server project never really had anything particularly to do with Fedora (apart from the connection to Red Hat).

Re: Fedora: Open-source repository for long-term digital preservation

#47

Post by macintux »

Kwpolska wrote: post #40
Dwedit wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their Github is https://github.com/fcrepo/fcrepo

Were they so unoriginal that they had to steal the "fc" abbreviation from the Linux distro as well? (In the Linux distro, it comes from the original name "Fedora Core"; the abbreviation is most visible in package versions.)

FEDORA is years older than Fedora.

Re: Fedora: Open-source repository for long-term digital preservation

#48

Post by Andrex »

supercheetah wrote: post #41
Andrex wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due to their comparative popularity, it makes complete sense to me. You don't have people in HN comments for a new Fedora release going "Wait is this about the Digital Access Project?" What does "not a good look" even mean in this context? Getting tired of this phrase's overuse tbh. "Think of the optics" fell into disuse and I can't wait for this one to join it.

Red Hat is the bigger party here. Their minimization of this issue seems a little like bullying.

There is no issue except the one third-parties (such as HN commenters) are making out of it.

Fedora and FEDORA reached an agreement a long time ago. Unless I missed something, neither party has disparaged the other in that time. The parent comment is making drama out of literally nothing. Neither side cares so why is parent OP trying to stir shit up?

As the kids say, "not a good look."

Re: Fedora: Open-source repository for long-term digital preservation

#49

Post by ameliaquining »

cevn wrote: post #5
macintux wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And predates Fedora by about 6 years.

I was ready to be mad in the comments, now I'm mad but in the other direction.

It seems that in 2003 (when Fedora Linux first launched) this project was pretty obscure and early-stage, so it's hard to blame Red Hat for not having known about it then. This kind of thing just happens sometimes.
Post reply on HN