On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 11:15:30AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > Hans de Goede wrote: > > Right now we have a very strong criteria for freedom. Weakening that > criteria it's a very slippery slope. Why is non-commercial okay? Why > not add non-modifiable? Why not add djb code? _That_ is why people are > objecting so loudly. I haven't heard so much people loudly objecting. Admitedly if the DFSG/OSI compliance is not used as a criterion for that particular add-on repo, it opens the door for more complicated rules of choice, but it also adds room for adding more packages. If there are enough people ready to take the time to devise a rule for deciding what is sufficiently free for that add-on repo, why should it be an issue? > And for the record, Debian non-free is utter hypocrisy. I don't see why. It is exactly the kind of 'hypocrisy' some people here would like, because it allows the packaging of some interesting software that are not osi-compliant, without being unacceptable. For example, and from the top of my head, there are gdal/libgeotiff, scilab, openmotif. -- 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
