Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2009-02-03

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On 2009-02-07 at 12:21:37 -0500, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> If not, goto C?

Yes, sorry. :)

>> C) Is it useful in a standalone state? If yes, it is probably content.
>> Look further and make recommendation to FESCo if it is at all unclear.
>> If no, it may still be content, but we may not want it in Fedora.
>>
>> As to cowsay, it falls out of that logic path at A, it is clearly an
>> executable script, thus, code.
> 
> Thanks Tom. May I ask two follow-up questions to clarify less obvious cases?
> 
> 1. Assume perl is free software but is not distributed by Fedora. Is
> cowsay still considered code under these guidelines or do we goto C?

Yes, but it wouldn't be permissable until perl was added to Fedora.
Non-functional code is a no-go.

> 2. Assume perl is non-free software available to run on Fedora from a
> 3rd party. Is cowsay still considered code under these guidelines or
> do we goto C?

Code that we have no possible way to execute, thus no-go.

This is a logical extension of:

"Packages which require non-open source components to build are also not
permitted (e.g. proprietary compiler required).":
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries

Hope that helps,

~spot