Referring to rpmfusion on Fedora project wiki?

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Tue Feb 24 21:04:01 UTC 2009


On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:32:23PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On 2009-02-24 at 11:26:14 -0500, "Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)"
> <bochecha at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >> Please let me know what wiki page is referring to rpmfusion, as I will
> >> need to make sure it is carefully and appropriately worded.
> > 
> > Isn't that the best way of being sure that one day, someone will speak
> > about RPMFusion and won't let you know as he saw other pages were
> > talking about it and he never read the current thread ?
> > 
> > Unless you keep lurking Special:RecentChanges [1], how can you be
> > certain not to miss some ?
> 
> No, but if there is an "approved" location for this information, people
> will be more likely to link to it rather than to try to reproduce it.
> 
> So, I've made:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:ThirdPartyRepositories
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThirdPartyRepositories is a redirect to
> that).
> 
> If you want me to add a third party repository to that page, please let
> me know.

Can you please add ATrpms?

> The only criteria is this:
> 
> 1) The repository can not be involved in a claim of infringement
> (copyright, patent, trademark, license), nor can I or Red Hat be aware
> of any material which leads us to believe that infringement is likely.
> 2) The repository must not duplicate packages contained within the
> Fedora package repositories.

The second one isn't a legal issue, is it? And some in the Fedora
community do appreciate that some packages are offered in an extended
way adding build time dependencies that are not in Fedora itself for
various reasons (probably for similar reasons the third party repo
exist at the first place).

Wrt ATrpms while the tendency has been to remove as much as possible
overlap I think we are not 100% there to having a solely add-on repo.

What I want to say is that don't make policies that will only allow
the One and Only Repo to pass.

> However, Fedora reserves the right to list or omit repositories, and is
> not required to do so, even if it meets this criteria.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090224/583d247a/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list