seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 17:06 -0500, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
Yes, exactly. Chris' statement earlier seemed to imply we did
something in F8 to make it technically possible to get legal codecs,
where that really isn't the case. It was just made easier.
Easier is important. But that's not the point. I think that Seth's
worried that we're using our valuable real estate to promote a company.
A special exemption, if you will. And I'm fine with it. If there were
another company you could get the same stuff from I would suggest that
we add them as an option. But we're not there right now.
My concern is the next time a company comes to us with the same.
Maybe they want a package in the distro which just installs a yum plugin
and a .repo file.
The plugin pops up a message everytime you run yum in interactive which
says "don't you need bitkeeper for all your software development needs?
Press 'yes' here to have bitkeeper installed for you" And then it goes
out to some repo and installs it for them.
Now, if this were a 'package' of some kind it might get rejected -
though there's no reason in the packaging guidelines to do so. However,
if the company behind bitkeeper came to us and agreed to give fedora/red
hat a big lump of cash in exchange for us to include this package, by
default, in the distro I want to be sure we have a reason/way to say no.
I feel like I understand your concerns. I think that we would evaluate
such a thing and say yes or no. A construct for evaluating it might be
something like:
1. Does it serve a core need for users?
2. Is there a legally available free software alternative or different
hardware the user can use?
3. Does it make us throw up in our mouths a little bit?
OK. That last one is over the top. But that's part of how I would
evaluate this.
--Chris
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
