On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:40:24PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 14:58 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:21:37AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > > Well, to paraphrase a conversation I had with a few people yesterday, > > > you have to draw the line somewhere. The "no use restrictions" is a > > > reasonable one. > > > > Not necessarily. it rules out openmotif, although it seems to me that > > it would fit perfectly in this repo. > > > I think before making rules like this, there is a more fundamental > discussion needed: Right now Fedora has a very explicit goal that it > should be ok for 3rd parties to create physical media and sell that for > profit. Indeed, but the proposal is to create a separate repo, with different goals than the pure OSI approved fedora repos. > This rule originates I suspect in part from the entire "Oh my god Red > Hat no longer makes media" slashdot crowd effect, but as a whole I think > it does make sense. But here we discuss about packages for which it is impossible. Of course in the general case it makes sense, but there are many interesting packages, especially for science/education, but not only, which don't fit. > As long as that goal is there, trying to make a decision tree that > undermines the goal is more or less pointless imo; it's a lot better to > first agree/disagree about this goal and THEN look deeper. It is not for fedora extras, but for a repo under fedora umbrella, not necessarily with fedora in the name, but with shared infrastructure. -- Pat -- 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
