On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Martin Erik Werner martinerikwerner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 12:21 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it wrote:
Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallaghersgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a > non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball > has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I > need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how > do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68.
Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply.
Yes, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibi...
Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items.
And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those?
If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes.
-J
So for something that is, say CC-BY-NonCommercial, it would be okay to ship in the SRPM but not in the RPM?
Neither, actually. See Bad Licences.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
-J
-- Martin Erik Werner martinerikwerner@gmail.com
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel