codec buddy pain

[Christopher Blizzard]

seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 17:06 -0500, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
>   
>> Josh Boyer wrote:
>>     
>>> Yes, exactly.  Chris' statement earlier seemed to imply we did
>>> something in F8 to make it technically possible to get legal codecs,
>>> where that really isn't the case.  It was just made easier.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Easier is important.  But that's not the point.  I think that Seth's 
>> worried that we're using our valuable real estate to promote a company.  
>> A special exemption, if you will.  And I'm fine with it.  If there were 
>> another company you could get the same stuff from I would suggest that 
>> we add them as an option.  But we're not there right now.
>>
>>     
>
> My concern is the next time a company comes to us with the same.
>
> Maybe they want a package in the distro which just installs a yum plugin
> and a .repo file.
>
> The plugin pops up a message everytime you run yum in interactive which
> says "don't you need bitkeeper for all your software development needs?
> Press 'yes' here to have bitkeeper installed for you" And then it goes
> out to some repo and installs it for them.
>
> Now, if this were a 'package' of some kind it might get rejected -
> though there's no reason in the packaging guidelines to do so. However,
> if the company behind bitkeeper came to us and agreed to give fedora/red
> hat a big lump of cash in exchange for us to include this package, by
> default, in the distro I want to be sure we have a reason/way to say no.
>
>   
I feel like I understand your concerns.  I think that we would evaluate 
such a thing and say yes or no.  A construct for evaluating it might be 
something like:

1. Does it serve a core need for users?
2. Is there a legally available free software alternative or different 
hardware the user can use?
3. Does it make us throw up in our mouths a little bit?

OK.  That last one is over the top.  But that's part of how I would 
evaluate this.

--Chris