[Fedora-packaging] Digging up an old dead thread ...

[Jussi Lehtola]

On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 20:22 +0200, steve wrote:
> Now, however, I do have some time and so I decided to submit a few of packages 
> as an example of the idea:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507912
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507915
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507916

These do raise a packaging guideline question that has been discussed a
while ago: is reusing a (binary) PDF okay, or should the PDF be compiled
in the build?

For normal software I'm for using the upstream PDFs if they're not
missing anything, but in the case of pure documentation packages I'm not
sure.

> b. About other CC licensed content -- A lot of the available content is licensed 
> with the Non-Commercial restriction, which is considered as a Bad License 
> according to the wiki page on licensing. Why is non-commercial only restriction 
> considered bad ? ...and is there an alternative to including this in the 
> official Fedora repository -- for instance the rpm fusion repository ?

Non-commercial is bad, since it limits the users freedom, so it is
non-free. Rpmfusion does have a nonfree repository which accepts these
kinds of packages.

> Now, coming to the original question i raised, would it make sense for me to 
> submit additional such packages possibly even the non-tech related ? Can we have 
> an 'alpha', 'beta' or 'rawhide' of a creative commons repository to see if the 
> idea gains popularity and to create some policies regarding this ?

This has been discussed before. IIRC the result was to continue on the
current code vs. content model, i.e. decide on a package basis whether
it's OK to go in.
-- 
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola at fedoraproject.org