On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 23:03 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:28:28 -0400 > > Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Rahul Sundaram (sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > >>> Sure. We are going to ask legal anyway but the question is how can > >>> we call something Fedora if it's not in our CVS which is not a > >>> legal question and that is what I was responding to. > >> I'm fairly certain we *DON'T* want to do this, even if we do start > >> pointing to a non-US repo. > > > > Indeed. We've been down the path of multiple SCMs and multiple build > > systems and multiple repos. We've all discovered that it just doesn't > > work well in the long run. > > If we are going to point to a non-US repo, that repository would have > it's own build system and SCM managed by Fedora contributors anyway and > users would be dealing with that. Question is only about how close do we > want it to be associated with Fedora and messaging it as a Fedora > repository vs third party repository depending on technical and legal > ramifications. Yes, that is the question. And we've discussed that in the Secondary arch stuff already. It has to be built from our CVS to be considered as a "Fedora" project. If we're going to re-evaluate that for this new topic, fine. But I want a consistent policy across all of it. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
