package submission policy question

[seth vidal]

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 05:44 -0700, Colin Charles wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 12:29 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> 
> > 1) the nature of the software could be seen as religious
> > efforts/campaigns
> 
> By providing software doesn't mean we're being religious zealots
> 
> > 2) the title of the software, sword, could invoke negative reactions
> > from some people
> 
> Lots of weirder titlted software out there
> 
> > Neither software package installs any biblical texts, those are to be
> > installed by the user - typically in the users home directory, from a
> > repository of modules that does respect the intellectual property rights
> > of the copyright holders.
> 
> I hope that the users are pointed to the places to get it. FWIW,
> packaging sword-kjv if you want is probably even okay - its things like
> the NIV that are coyprighted
> 
> > These packages are not suitable for rpm.livna.org, extras is imho the
> > place for them. If there is to be a policy that excludes these kind of
> 
> And Extras they should be at.

I do not think Fedora Extras should include religious content in the
same way I do not think it should contain any porn packages.

Otherwise we end up with N copies of all data on the internet that is
under the right license. I think it's great to see fedora grow but we'll
need to draw lines eventually and I think content is a perfect line to
draw.


-sv