On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 10:53 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > > Honestly, I think all of these comments come from one pivotal issue: > > > > Fedora won't break US law. > > > > Debian will. Ubuntu will. SuSE will. Gentoo will. > > > > Thus, there is no need for "extra" repositories to arise for these Linux > > distributions. And the average user wants to have software that breaks > > the law (mp3, dvd, etc). So they have to go outside the safety zone that > > is the distribution for Fedora, and here there be dragons. > > > > This problem sucks. It has always sucked. We're playing by the rules, > > where no one else is, and we're getting punished for it, while they > > prosper. > > > > The rules (US law) are broken. I just have no idea how to fix it in my > > lifetime, much less in the period of relevance for Fedora. > > I think you're right. > > So let me ask this question. > > For other distros, do they mix free/non-free in the same repo? And for > the ones that do not do this -- for the ones who have separate > free/non-free repos -- how do they manage to keep content in sync between > them? Debian interprets free/non-free in the FSF sense of the term, not in a legal sense. Ubuntu does the same. This means that they have mp3 code in their "free" repo. SuSE doesn't have any distinction that I can say, and Gentoo's closest repository equivalent is wholly merged. If you're asking if they have a legal/illegal split, the answer is no for all. ~spot _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
