[Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff

[Hans de Goede]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 12:33 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Same server infrastructure, build system infrastructure, better package
>> coordination/less package conflicts (c.f. Axel's complaint on zaptel and
>> friends), same packaging standards, ...
> 
> The only thing I really see as a benefit is perhaps the same server
> infrastructure.  Plague is open source, so a 3rd party repo can use that
> just fine (I'm part of a local project that does).  The packaging
> standards can be adopted by anyone.  Coordination/conflicts... only
> because it would the become required for maintainers of FE which places
> more steps on them.
> 

Setting up such an infrastructure and don't forget mirrors is far from
easy, I'm a contributer to livna too and (Sorry Anvil) its
infrastructure is clearly inferior (in some points) to FE's.

May I reverse the question what is the big problem with having a non
commercial only but otherwise Free repo using FE infrastructure? Many FE
contributers are already spending time on such packages through all kind
of small repo's / website's etc. I for one would rather spend that time
within the same framework / infrastructure. In the end this would save
me time thus allowing me todo more Fedora work.

Also having such a repo will be good PR wise, then we have an official
place to point users to look for such software instead of having to say
erm yeah there are packages out there, but if things break you're on
your own.

Let me make myself very clear here, I'm not arguing to open the
floodgates for all kinda dubious licensed / gray area software, I'm just
asking for a non commercial repo (not even a non free one, source access
matters!).

> Well, to paraphrase a conversation I had with a few people yesterday,
> you have to draw the line somewhere.  The "no use restrictions" is a
> reasonable one.
> 

For Fedora Base (aka Core + Extras) I 100% agree but whats wrong with an
additional repo which isn't enabled by default which lies the boundary
at "no use restrictions accept for non commercial use only"?

Again let me reverse the question from why a non commercial repo, to why
not?

Regards,

Hans