On 3/21/06, jharnish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <jharnish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Would it still be the same case if you distributed a package containing the yum repo > file for something like the Flash repo (http://macromedia.mplug.org/rep_uh.html) ? Setting aside the issues associated with making shipping pre-approved links to any 3rd party software repositories comfortable for the lawyers whom I can not speak for. And also side-stepping he issues of the support burden associated with blurring the line between Fedora packages and 3rd party packages by providing additional "legal" 3rd party configurations and whether that will confuse the userbase as to which entity is responsible for associated problems. I will say that I personally would prefer if this project continues to take a very hardline stance with regard to providing a complete open-source experience, instead of providing pre-configured links to any proprietary solutions to fill in the gaps in the foss stack. I'm fully prepared to live with gaps in both software and hardware support to encourage development of open source solutions over proprietary ones. Even if that project policy impacts the release's overall userbase popularity because of the incremental annoyance of finding 3rd party repositories... i believe its worth it if the annoyance factor spurs increased interest in open and distributable implementations of the missing functionality. -jef"any news about the gcjwebplugin project of late?"spaleta -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list