Referring to rpmfusion on Fedora project wiki?

Michel Salim michel.sylvan at gmail.com
Mon Feb 23 18:05:24 UTC 2009


On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 08:51 -0500, Michel Salim wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Rahul Sundaram
>> <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> > Michel Salim wrote:
>> >
>> >> And presumably we can't really link to fedorasolved / fedoramobile
>> >> either? There ought to be a policy for editing Wikis so that we don't
>> >> cover things where the obvious solution cannot be mentioned.
>> >
>> > Refer
>> >
>> > http://lwn.net/Articles/257559/
>> Aha, thanks! So we don't need to circuitously link through a
>> third-party website that then point back to rpmfusion.
>>
>> I'll re-update the Wiki page.
>
> Still, if it's Fedora's policy not to support non-free software, even if
> there's no *legal* problem with talking about a non-free driver, would
> it still be a *policy* problem?
>
> After all, there's nothing illegal about the proprietary NVIDIA or ATI
> drivers, but the Wiki doesn't talk about how to install those (as far as
> I can see, anyway).

The Wiki does not talk about those, but in these cases, using
open-source drivers lead to reduced functionality as the worst case.
Not having functioning wi-fi, on the other hand, is a major dent in
functionality.

I probably would not have put up the link to Broadcom at all, but the
link has been there since before I noticed the page, so the choice is
between:
- removing it (and instead, only identify the chipset so people can
search for it themselves)
- pointing to FedoraMobile
- pointing directly to RPMfusion

Regards,

-- 
miʃel salim  •  http://hircus.jaiku.com/
IUCS         •  msalim at cs.indiana.edu
Fedora       •  salimma at fedoraproject.org
MacPorts     •  hircus at macports.org




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list