On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:01:40 -0400 (EDT) Seth Vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > Then our opions diverge: I think it should be a hard show stopper > > criterion. > > > > There should not be any room for any "cripple ware" in Fedora nor > > should Fedora be a stage for "closed source loaders". > > I think I agree. > > > This is just like shipping a package with an intentionally missing > dependency. We wouldn't allow shipping yum if rpm were missing, > right? > > this sounds the same to me. So, how about some other cases instead of just kmods: - Client apps that are free and acceptable for fedora, but a server app that is not. EXAMPLE: mpd (in rpmfusion) and all the various mpd clients that are all in fedora. - Library app thats free, but only non free things link against it so far. EXAMPLE: libvdpau - Package that is free an interfaces with a non free server's data: EXAMPLE: dbxml-perl - Package that is free, but the kernel part of it's currently not working (although planned to be back and great work is being done on it): EXAMPLE: xen - Package that is free and acceptable for fedora, but requires a non free service to function: EXAMPLE: perl-Net-Amazon-EC2 Where does the black and white line come in here? Or is it shades of grey? kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
