[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, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

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?


We've allowed pretty much all of the cases where you could communicate over the network to something else.

but we're not talking about over-the-network communication here.


-sv


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