Re: Referring to rpmfusion on Fedora project wiki?

[Adam Williamson <awilliam redhat com>]

On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 08:51 -0500, Michel Salim wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Rahul Sundaram
> <sundaram fedoraproject org> 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).
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net