On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:14:59 -0500 Eric Mesa <ericsbinaryworld@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > sean wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:27:09 -0500 Eric Mesa > > <ericsbinaryworld@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> In order to pull in packagers like those maintaining > Dries, Dag > >> Weirs, freshrpms, and others, and in order to assure > Fedora users > >> that their packages would work instead of saying, "if > you don't > >> use official packages, you're on your own," has there > been any > >> conversation on taking an example from Debian and > having a > >> non-free repository? It would also free up the > packagers who > >> spend so much time duplicating each other's packages > in order to > >> ensure compatibility. I know there are issues with > their ffmpeg > >> and mp3 codecs, but could these issues be solved > simply by > >> designating their repositories as non-free? I think it > would > >> greatly enhance the Fedora experience, IMHO as a loyal > FC user > >> since Yarrow. > >> > > > > Not speaking as an authority, but such notions are > directly against > > the stated goals of this project. The fact that there > are some > > people who want to also use non-free software doesn't > (and > > shouldn't) change the nature or goals of the project > itself. Those > > who want to do so should create a central repository > themselves and > > provide whatever guarantees they can muster. It's not > likely to > > ever be able to use Fedora branding though. > > > > Sean > > > I figured. I thought it was worth asking, just in case. > Good point! Still I see a demand for this and much of the infrastructure is there already with FE, we just need additonal repos. There are people interested in this, and it would be a waste of community effort to let them setup there own build infrastructure and everything that comes with it. Now if we're crossing a legal treshold by offering them infrastructure then I agree 100% but if we can legally help them by offering infrastructure, why not. I've not thought about branding yet, maybe non-free needs a non fedora name, I'm personally not all that interested in non-free, as I won't use it. What I'm interested in is no commercial use, this is so close to 100% free (for me as an acedemic / private user) I see a place for this under the Fedora Project. Also (I'll take this discussion to the Livna list after this mail since it doesn't belong here) I would like to see livna cleaned-up / split so that livna users don't have to worry about what they're sucking in through yum, currently livna is (IMHO) becoming to much of a mixed bag. Regards, Hans > - -- > Eric Mesa > ericsbinaryworld@xxxxxxxxx > http://www.ericsbinaryworld.com > Note: All emails from this address should have a GPG > signature. If > you have the proper setup you can use this to confirm my > identity and > that the email was not changed in transit. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - > http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFD+60CPvU+8ApmWXIRAq//AJ91nwuJJX5pbKg7IcKdlhNcq9MzxACfY7N5 > xLFvCzeiQ/+hHi1RDcVufNs= > =4Tax > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
