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

Re: Package Maintainers Flags policy



On 05/18/2009 07:36 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Denis Leroy (denis poolshark org) said:
Due to an oversight, this policy was not announced here. ;(

Please see:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Maintainers_Flags_Policy
Surely, this needs to go through FPC first.

Given that it's (essentially) a legal issue (affecting distribution/
availability of Fedora), I don't see that.

It is not really a legal issue, as Tom mentioned. You cannot get sued for putting "Free Tibet" on your web page. But back to the topic, putting all flags blindly into the same "controversial" category is simply silly, and an overreaction. As was mentioned in another post, let's stick with UN-recognized countries, and let packagers deal with other cases based on specific user complaints or feedback.

I am not saying we should not deal with packages containing intentionally provocative political contents (I don't know, some sort of easter egg feature displaying political propaganda, has that ever happened ?), but the torrent package is a far cry from that scenario. At worst, isolate the deemed-offensive flags in a separate RPM (so that people who want to create a PRC-friendly Fedora spin can do so easily), but please don't put ALL flags in the same category.

The drafted policy is overreaching.


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