Re: Reducing the number of necessary repos with non-free software (was Re: the libdvdcss issue)

On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 13:27, Andreas Thienemann wrote: > On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Hans de Goede wrote: [...] >> 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. > Do not forget that one of the main reasons for fusion was the plan to > implement the Fedora + 1 repository concept for all software needs. > Right now we're probably at Fedora + rpmfusion + livna + adobe... I wonder if we could arrange an agreement with Adobe to let us distribute the Flash Plugin as an RPM package. Maybe Adobe Reader too.