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

Three staged repo structure, official/unofficial/outcast (was: Luvna (Re: scientific license - fedora compatible?))



On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:56:04PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> BTW, some of the Luvna guys also brought the idea "Let's merge with
> other 3rd party repos to one grant-unified-3rd-party repo that only
> enhances Core and Extras and does not replace packages from Core and
> Extas" on the table. There were some private mails with other repo
> maintainers, but nothing came out of it afaik. 

At least the discussion I had sounded interesting and promising. But
I don't know about any other discussions that took place, so maybe
it drowned in the statistics.

BTW its' livna not luvna (yes, I known you all know), here its is, I
said it and you can all sue me now! ;)

Seriously: As long as you don't dress an official position in Fedora
(which thl does) and explicitely say "go to livna, atrpms or
dag/dries/freshrpms where you can find lots of patented algorithms in
software" (which noone in this thread mentioned) you can name the
entities by their name.

For example mentioning that closed sourced software or not enough open
source for Fedora criteria is in the <named> repo is not considered
endorsing patent violations.

Just don't refer to any patent tainted issues when naming repos by
their name in any official way.

And don't call livna, atrpms and freinds non-free, on the contrary
we're living on the free side of the software world (still ...)

Maybe it makes sense to split up repos in

a) Fedora official (core/extras and all the bits fitting in the
   definition of the current open source)

b) non-Fedora non-official hosting bits that don't fit in the
   definition of Fedora, but are still not a general issue
   (e.g. closed source or not-enough open source bits)

c) non-Fedora non-official possibly patent tainted stuff.

Official cooperation with naming thing could happen between a) and b)
(syncing infrastructure/buildsystems/accounts), which c) remains
unspoken of in terms/scope of a) [But maybe b) knows about c) and at
least sync buildsystem with it, but not accounts]

BTW as everyone here knows c) doesn't exist, at least we never heard
of repos doing c) ...
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpwbqWS3KGxV.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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