https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zarafa has detailed instructions on how
to get a patent encumbered package from rpmfusion. I wasn't sure if this
particular example had been reviewed by legal yet and it seems borderline,
so I thought I'd ask here. (There are warnings that it is patent
encumbered in the US and other places and maybe that makes it OK.)
I was forced to remove yet another project from Copr due patents (ffmpeg
bundling). And I got email in response, which (when stripped off the
emotions) contains very good question:
> Launchpad allows restricted softwares, whereas copr doesn't? please search
> for ffmpeg or ppsspp or pcsx2 at https://launchpad.net/
> wait, how does ubuntu circumvent the US laws using PPA and restricted
> Launchpad allows
> May be Ubuntu has better lawyers than redhat!
And I find that I do not know the answer.
What is the trick that Ubuntu can host on PPA, Lunchpad etc. restricted
content, but Fedora can not?
My "OSTree" system which I'd like to deploy in Fedora treats operating
system binaries like git treats source code - they have a versioned
history. This is in contrast to the default mode of operation with RPM
and higher level systems like Koji which will garbage collect older
binaries that are not part of a release.
This rpm-ostree is not a new source-level build system - merely a new
representation of the binary RPMs.
Now, I want this system to be compliant with both the letter and spirit
of the GPL - you should be able to find the source for a given binary
that's included in the OSTree repository.
My understanding is that normally with yum/rpm as they are today, "rpm
-qf /usr/bin/bash" telling you the binary came from the bash package,
and then "rpm -qi bash" showing you the source RPM name, then finally
locating the bash-$version.src.rpm provided from e.g.
With OSTree, I may not even include rpm inside the composed tree (the
system shipped to users) - in that case, I include the output of "rpm
-qa". While the file -> package mapping is not included in this model,
the source is available and provided by Fedora.
So that's my first question - do I need to include the file-level
mapping so one can go from binary -> package -> source package?
Second, Koji may garbage collect the RPMs and SRPMs, for an obsoleted
build, but rpm-ostree may retain the binaries.
Is the package git sufficient for this purpose? One can reconstruct
the SRPMs from that. Or would we need integration between Koji and
rpm-ostree to avoid having SRPMs garbage collected as long as they're
stored in the OSTree repository?
Thanks in advance for any advice or help!