Non-free Extras (No commercial use?) ?

[Goede, J.W.R. de]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:14:59 -0500
 Eric Mesa <ericsbinaryworld at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> sean wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:27:09 -0500 Eric Mesa
> > <ericsbinaryworld at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> In order to pull in packagers like those maintaining
> Dries, Dag
> >> Weirs, freshrpms, and others, and in order to assure
> Fedora users
> >> that their packages would work instead of saying, "if
> you don't
> >> use official packages, you're on your own," has there
> been any
> >> conversation on taking an example from Debian and
> having a
> >> non-free repository? It would also free up the
> packagers who
> >> spend so much time duplicating each other's packages
> in order to
> >> ensure compatibility. I know there are issues with
> their ffmpeg
> >> and mp3 codecs, but could these issues be solved
> simply by
> >> designating their repositories as non-free? I think it
> would
> >> greatly enhance the Fedora experience, IMHO as a loyal
> FC user
> >> since Yarrow.
> >>
> >
> > Not speaking as an authority, but such notions are
> directly against
> > the stated goals of this project. The fact that there
> are some
> > people who want to also use non-free software doesn't
> (and
> > shouldn't) change the nature or goals of the project
> itself. Those
> > who want to do so should create a central repository
> themselves and
> > provide whatever guarantees they can muster. It's not
> likely to
> > ever be able to use Fedora branding though.
> >
> > Sean
> >
> I figured.  I thought it was worth asking, just in case.
> 

Good point! 

Still I see a demand for this and much of the
infrastructure is there already with FE, we just need
additonal repos. There are people interested in this, and
it would be a waste of community effort to let them setup
there own build infrastructure and everything that comes
with it. Now if we're crossing a legal treshold by offering
them infrastructure then I agree 100% but if we can legally
help them by offering infrastructure, why not.

I've not thought about branding yet, maybe non-free needs a
non fedora name, I'm personally not all that interested in
non-free, as I won't use it.

What I'm interested in is no commercial use, this is so
close to 100% free (for me as an acedemic / private user) I
see a place for this under the Fedora Project.

Also (I'll take this discussion to the Livna list after
this mail since it doesn't belong here) I would like to see
livna cleaned-up / split so that livna users don't have to
worry about what they're sucking in through yum, currently
livna is (IMHO) becoming to much of a mixed bag.

Regards,

Hans





> - --
> Eric Mesa
> ericsbinaryworld at gmail.com
> http://www.ericsbinaryworld.com
> Note:  All emails from this address should have a GPG
> signature.  If
> you have the proper setup you can use this to confirm my
> identity and
> that the email was not changed in transit.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -
> http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
>
iD8DBQFD+60CPvU+8ApmWXIRAq//AJ91nwuJJX5pbKg7IcKdlhNcq9MzxACfY7N5
> xLFvCzeiQ/+hHi1RDcVufNs=
> =4Tax
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> -- 
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>