Linking to "third party repositories"

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

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