[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?



On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:01:40 -0400 (EDT)
Seth Vidal <skvidal fedoraproject org> 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


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]