On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 08:51 -0500, Michel Salim wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Rahul Sundaram >> <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Michel Salim wrote: >> > >> >> And presumably we can't really link to fedorasolved / fedoramobile >> >> either? There ought to be a policy for editing Wikis so that we don't >> >> cover things where the obvious solution cannot be mentioned. >> > >> > Refer >> > >> > http://lwn.net/Articles/257559/ >> Aha, thanks! So we don't need to circuitously link through a >> third-party website that then point back to rpmfusion. >> >> I'll re-update the Wiki page. > > Still, if it's Fedora's policy not to support non-free software, even if > there's no *legal* problem with talking about a non-free driver, would > it still be a *policy* problem? > > After all, there's nothing illegal about the proprietary NVIDIA or ATI > drivers, but the Wiki doesn't talk about how to install those (as far as > I can see, anyway). The Wiki does not talk about those, but in these cases, using open-source drivers lead to reduced functionality as the worst case. Not having functioning wi-fi, on the other hand, is a major dent in functionality. I probably would not have put up the link to Broadcom at all, but the link has been there since before I noticed the page, so the choice is between: - removing it (and instead, only identify the chipset so people can search for it themselves) - pointing to FedoraMobile - pointing directly to RPMfusion Regards, -- miʃel salim • http://hircus.jaiku.com/ IUCS • msalim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora • salimma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx MacPorts • hircus@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
