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
