On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 17:49 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 10:34 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 17:25 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 10:18 -0500, bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-30 10:18 EST ------- > > > > There are already Fedora repositories that would permit such software. Of > > > > course, nothing in Extras can depend on them. > > > > > > > > It is indeed unfortunate, but it is not the fault of Fedora that the upstream > > > > data is not licensed in a sufficiently free manner. > > > > > > Of cause Fedora also takes it share about this: > > > > > > It's the politics behind Fedora which prevent "legal and free for > > > non-commercial use" packages to be adopted by Fedora and which forces > > > packagers to resort to 3rd parties. May-be it would be more helpful for > > > FE (FESCO) to re-consider their attitude on "non-free repos" in FE. > > > > No. > > Your open mind is always a pleasure to experience. Thanks :). For a more verbose denial, see Jason's response. josh -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
