Re: Linking to "third party repositories"
On 11.11.2007 11:08, Hans de Goede wrote:
Andrea Musuruane wrote:
> I've just stumbled across this:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/257559/
>
> I would highlight this sentence: "We cannot ship yum configs which
> enable Livna".
>
> Even if a reference to RPM Fusion can be made in the Fedora wiki, Fedora
> cannot ship a config to directly access RPM Fusion. Thus I think that
> there is no longer a need for two distinct repositories free/nonfree :-(
Actually there still is, the split was never needed for legal reasons,
some non-free software is perfectly legal to redistribute in the US, the
split was and is necessary because Fedora does not want to promote and
thus does not want to link to, non free software.
Fully agreed. What the Red Had lawyers said was that it's fine to link
to Livna (¹); that doesn't mean the Fedora Board wants to do that (see
the recent discussions on Codec Buddy/Codeine and how some people think
that's a problem). It's IMHO way more likely the Board is willing to
like to a RPM Fusion repo if they can point to a repo that contains only
Open-Source-Software just as Fedora does.
And further: Yes, the best thing about RPM Fusion from my point of view
is that it merges three of the four major Fedora-add-on repos. But for
me it's closely followed by another good thing: splitting non-free and
free software into separate repos. Something I suppose Livna might have
done by none as well if RPM Fusion wouldn't be on the horizon, as
multiple people asked for such a split in Livna.
CU
knurd
(¹) -- or link to RPM Fusion once it started; I don't like it that much
that Livna is used as example in the Fedora discussions with RPM Fusion
soon starting