On 07/02/2008, Andrew Farris <lordmorgul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Christopher Brown wrote: > > On 07/02/2008, Douglas McClendon <dmc.fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Christopher Brown wrote: > >>> On 07/02/2008, Douglas McClendon <dmc.fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> I've been meaning to do this myself for a long time, but I've just got a > >>>> lot of other higher priorities. I don't suppose I could implore someone > >>>> else into doing the work for me? Shouldn't be real hard. > >>>> > >>>> Wouldn't it be cool to be able to append a teeny little kickstart > >>>> postscript, and then end up with a livecd or system that has GE > >>>> installed for all users? > >>>> > >>>> http://packages.debian.org/etch/googleearth-package > >>> It doesn't have an open source license so can't be included in Fedora > >>> of course. Which makes it OT for this list IMO. > >> I suspect this is a point you understand, but for the sake of clarity > >> I'll highlight- > >> > >> The "googleearth-package" package/.deb/[theoretical .rpm], absolutely > >> DOES have an open source license. > >> > >> What the _tool_ that it _provides_, does, is to generate a > >> non-open-source rpm from a simple commandline invocation and network access. > >> > >> Please, it's fine if you don't want to be the one to do this, but from a > >> legal and open-source perspective, I think that > >> googleearth-package*.[s]rpm belongs in fedora just as much as the > >> current .deb belongs in debian. > > > > > > Yeah, I got the inference. qv. the script that downloads restricted > > content on the Fedora Games DVD. So why don't we package a script that > > configures the nvidia binary driver? > > Well I don't know why you couldn't, but I think what livna is doing in this area > is a superior solution anyway. Yes, sorry, question was rhetorical and I should've indicated this. Or at the very least opening the idea to further debate. The googleearth-package Douglas referred to appears to do little more than grab the binary, extract into a chroot and build a debian-happy .deb from that. Other than modifying to the binary to suit, it would just be a method of circumventing the "No closed source software" policy of Fedora. If we are to okay this, why hasn't this been done for other popular closed source linux apps/drivers such as the nvidia driver? Please note I am definitely *not* advocating it should be. -- Christopher Brown http://www.chruz.com -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
