gnaughty is a hot babe

[Ralf Corsepius]

Florian Festi wrote:
> inode0 wrote:
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Kushal Das <kushaldas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:16 PM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> True. Someone should ask the question: does it make sense to have
>>>> different rules if they prevent the inclusion of useful content and
>>>> allow the inclusion of useless code?
>>> Which is useless to me can be very useful to someone else.
>>
>> That doesn't explain why there is a different standard for content.
> 
> It is ok if you know and obey the rules. There is no need for you to 
> understand why they are in place. Anyway, Fedora is a Linux distribution 
> (for those who did not yet realize) an though (free) Linux software 
> (that can be run on Fedora) is what it is all about and content is not 
> (with very few exceptions). Software yes - content no.
That's essentially the reason why things are as they are.

Another (slightly related) reason is to prevent Fedora from being abused 
as medium for "content distribution".

Think about people packaging up "books", "music", "movies" or other 
media files into rpms and to push them into the Fedora repos.

Apart from the bandwidth and diskspace this would require, this would 
not be much of a technical problem, but it would have a significant 
impact elsewhere ("legality", "morality" etc. of contents)

That said, there is a "gray zone" between "contents" and "software", 
which need to be decided on a case by case basis. In Fedora's history, 
emulators, cross toolchains's target libs and game data have been such 
cases, other cases would be "Free Linux books/movies".

> I really see no 
> way or reason why there should be a common standard for both.
Exactly. I'd go one step further: It doesn't make sense.

Ralf