[Fedora-packaging] code vs. content

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 11/20/2009 05:53 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> Just this morning I was noting ("complaining about", I guess) this on
> IRC.
>
>>>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius<rc040203 at freenet.de>  writes:
>
> RC>  The problem I have with this package providing a precedence of how
> RC>  to circumvent Fedora's regulations/guidelines etc. to use Fedora as
> RC>  means to distribute "mere content".
>
> Well, the interesting thing is that it's not this package which would
> provide the precedent.  In fact, there are already several precedents in
> the distro, depending on which facet of the code vs. content issue you
> choose to examine.
I wasn't aware about this. Which packages are you referring to?

> RC>  What to do about this package and about this issue in general?
>
> All I know is that it's terribly difficult for anyone to finely define
> the boundary of acceptability here.
Exactly.

>  Program documentation is obviously
> OK.  What about programming documentation?  A Perl tutorial or Dive into
> Python?  A generic book on Java programming?  It's not too far from
> there to all of Project Gutenberg, and it hasn't really been that long
> since the issue of books was discussed to death on fedora-devel.  Not to
> mention that even if you could somehow accurately lay out a boundary of
> acceptability, you'd then have to turn around and address the issue of
> quality.
I for one, don't have much problems with such kind of content, as long 
as its somehow directly related to Linux and/or Fedora.

> I have to admit, though, that pictures of your favorite city or
> amphibian or whatever just don't seem to me to have much point, even if
> they are wrapped in the necessary bits so that they work as a
> screensaver.
This is what I feel is going to happen here - Which "content collection" 
will be next?

<sarcasm>
We should try to contact the tourism offices, marketing agencies and 
photographers all around the world and point them to the marketing 
opportunities Fedora offers to them.
</sarcasm>

>  But then we ship a bunch of "*-backgrounds*" packages and
> nobody seems to complain.
Well, may-be these packages should be revisited and re-reviewed?

> In the end, it isn't really up to FPC to make the policy on what's
> acceptable here,
Agreed. Finding a solution would be FESCO's and/or FPB's job.

> and if we're concerned about limiting the size of the
> distro then there's plenty of other cruft that you'd have to put up on
> the chopping block as well.  I think FESCo is going to have to address
> this sooner or later, because it's not a big jump from some pictures of
> London to pictures of hot girls and who knows what else.
>
> For some reason this makes me wonder if we still patch out the "penis"
> configuration from the snake screensaver.
My concern isn't cultural issues/differences, mine is "mass" and 
"usefulness".

Ralf