[Fedora-legal-list] Reasons for not including MPlayer in main repository?
Christofer C. Bell
christofer.c.bell at gmail.com
Fri Oct 15 07:23:24 UTC 2010
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Stefan Parviainen <pafcu at iki.fi> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 04:53:25PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > >> Given that mplayer is already available in rpmfusion, I do not think
> > >> there is any merit in packaging a stripped version in Fedora, as it
> > >> would cause a conflict with rpmfusion.
> I find it curious that you are activly discouraging making "freer"
> versions of software, and instead encourage the use of 3rd-party
> repositories containing restricted software.
He's saying that to make a free version of mplayer renders the
software unmaintainable. This is not an unreasonable position to
> In addition to not having mplayer in the main repositories this also
> makes it impossible to include software that depends on mplayer in the
> main repos.
Yes, it does, and that's unfortunate.
> Since there seems to be so much opposition to my idea I will just have
> to skip Fedora as a supported platform for my software (no, telling
> people to install dependencies from some "random" 3rd party source is
> not a good solution for me).
RPMFusion is far from "some 'random' 3rd party source". Many bona
fide Fedora maintainers work on RPMFusion. Is there any reason you
can't contribute your software through RPMFusion?
Here's how you can get involved: http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors
More information about the legal