On 2009-02-07 at 12:21:37 -0500, inode0 <inode0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If not, goto C? Yes, sorry. :) >> C) Is it useful in a standalone state? If yes, it is probably content. >> Look further and make recommendation to FESCo if it is at all unclear. >> If no, it may still be content, but we may not want it in Fedora. >> >> As to cowsay, it falls out of that logic path at A, it is clearly an >> executable script, thus, code. > > Thanks Tom. May I ask two follow-up questions to clarify less obvious cases? > > 1. Assume perl is free software but is not distributed by Fedora. Is > cowsay still considered code under these guidelines or do we goto C? Yes, but it wouldn't be permissable until perl was added to Fedora. Non-functional code is a no-go. > 2. Assume perl is non-free software available to run on Fedora from a > 3rd party. Is cowsay still considered code under these guidelines or > do we goto C? Code that we have no possible way to execute, thus no-go. This is a logical extension of: "Packages which require non-open source components to build are also not permitted (e.g. proprietary compiler required).": https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries Hope that helps, ~spot _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
