the libdvdcss issue

[Hans de Goede]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 18.11.2008 11:12, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> On 18.11.2008 09:28, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>  >
>>>> 2) we still need to make this work seamlessly for end users, so if 
>>>> we do this I vote for putting a .repo file pointing to livna in 
>>>> rpmfusion-nonfree-release
>>> I strongly vote against that. If I as user install a package 
>>> foo-release then I expect it to only install repo files for the repo 
>>> "foo" and not for random other 3rd party repos I might never have 
>>> heard of or which I might not want. And something like that could 
>>> backfire on us/taint us easily as well.
>> Well, it is not a random third party repo now is it,
> 
> For current users: no. But I bet in a year or two new Fedora users will 
> get confused and start to answer question.
> 
>> it is one of the repos which make up the new rpmfusion, also we want 
>> this to work seamlessly.
> 
> Enabling a repository that ships libdvdcss automatically is nearly just 
> as bad as shipping it directly in our repos (¹). It hence would 
> pollute/taint RPM Fusion and imho is a completely no go.
> 

Erm, shipping a file containing a link is something very different from 
shipping, and if we ship a third party repo enablement tool we will be in 
effect doing the same.

Also this seems to be an ever sliding issue, first we would ship it despite the 
concerns of a few, then you changed your mind and I and others reluctantly 
agreed, but we also agreed we would come up with some seamless integration 
solution. And now we are also slipping from the seamless integration solution 
to some horrible convoluted hack. I'm very unhappy about this. Esp. about how 
you seem to keep coming back upon made decisions.

> (¹) the reasons are similar to the reasons why Fedora doesn't even link 
> to RPM Fusion
> 

And Fedora Legal actually has cleared doing that (linking to rpmfusion from the 
wiki), this is something which still has to be implemented, but the permission 
is there. This was one of the main reasons to do the free / non-free split, to 
give Fedora something it can link to without even giving the appearance of 
promoting non free software.

Regards,

Hans