Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
Kevin Fenzi
kevin at scrye.com
Wed Oct 14 17:55:52 UTC 2009
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:01:40 -0400 (EDT)
Seth Vidal <skvidal at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20091014/211bc2e0/attachment.sig>
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list