5:03 a.m.
Hi,
can someone please check:
https://fedorahosted.org/copr/wiki/UserDocs#WhatIcanbuildinCopr
(section What I can build in Copr?)
I write there someting reasonable for me, but you know IANAL.
Just to clarify:
* Copr is run in Fedora Cloud, so those packages reside in Fedora
infrastructure.
* No one but owner of project (and people which he allow to) will be
modifiing packages. I.e. no proven packagers like in Fedora.
Mirek
12:54 p.m.
On 11/06/2013 06:03 AM, Miroslav Suchy wrote:
Hi,
can someone please check:
https://fedorahosted.org/copr/wiki/UserDocs#WhatIcanbuildinCopr
(section What I can build in Copr?)
I write there someting reasonable for me, but you know IANAL.
Just to clarify:
* Copr is run in Fedora Cloud, so those packages reside in Fedora
infrastructure.
* No one but owner of project (and people which he allow to) will be
modifiing packages. I.e. no proven packagers like in Fedora.
Well, I had a lot of legal text prepared for copr, I'm not sure why
Bohuslav didn't end up using it. Specifically relevant to your concern,
the rules for materials in Coprs are:
*****
You agree not to use Coprs to upload software code or other material
("Material") that:
a. you do not have the right to upload or use, such as Material that
infringes the rights of any third party under intellectual
property or other applicable laws;
b. is governed in whole or in part by a license not contained in the
list of acceptable licenses for Fedora, currently located at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing, as that list may be
revised from time to time by the Fedora Project Board;
c. is categorized as a "Forbidden Item" at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items,
as that page may be revised from time to time by the Fedora
Project Board;
d. is designed to interfere with, disable, overburden, damage,
impair or disrupt Coprs or Fedora Project infrastructure;
e. violates any rules or guidelines of the Fedora Project; or
f. violates any applicable laws and regulations.
*****
~tom
==
Fedora Project
10:03 a.m.
Hi,
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 13:54 -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
You agree not to use Coprs to upload software code or other material
("Material") that:
[... snip ...]
e. violates any rules or guidelines of the Fedora Project; or
By « rules and guidelines », I suppose (or rather I hope) you don't mean
« the Fedora packaging guidelines », right?
--
Mathieu
8:42 p.m.
On 11/09/2013 11:03 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 13:54 -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
> You agree not to use Coprs to upload software code or other material
> ("Material") that:
[... snip ...]
> e. violates any rules or guidelines of the Fedora Project; or
By « rules and guidelines », I suppose (or rather I hope) you don't mean
« the Fedora packaging guidelines », right?
No, that is not what we mean there. The Packaging Guidelines are not
being enforced in coprs.
~tom
==
Fedora Project
2:03 a.m.
On 11/08/2013 07:54 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
Well, I had a lot of legal text prepared for copr, I'm not sure
why
Bohuslav didn't end up using it. Specifically relevant to your concern,
the rules for materials in Coprs are:
I'm not sure either. Sorry to bring it again then, but I did not seen it discussed on
public mailing list.
*****
You agree not to use Coprs to upload software code or other material
("Material") that:
a. you do not have the right to upload or use, such as Material that
infringes the rights of any third party under intellectual
property or other applicable laws;
check.
b. is governed in whole or in part by a license not contained in
the
list of acceptable licenses for Fedora, currently located at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing, as that list may be
revised from time to time by the Fedora Project Board;
Hmm, why I could not build there something covered by - let say - Zimbra Public License
1.3 ?
This is randomly chosen license from "Bad" section where it is forbidden to
modifacate software. But otherwise it is
redistributable and open source. This is not acceptable for Fedora itself, but should be
fine for Copr. IMHO.
c. is categorized as a "Forbidden Item" at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items,
as that page may be revised from time to time by the Fedora
Project Board;
Why we should forbid binary blobs (e.g firmwares)?
But beside those blobs I agree.
d. is designed to interfere with, disable, overburden, damage,
impair or disrupt Coprs or Fedora Project infrastructure;
check
e. violates any rules or guidelines of the Fedora Project; or
I think we need to be more specific here.
Try to google "rules Fedora project" - nothing. And "guidelines Fedora
Project" will give you just Packaging Guidelines.
f. violates any applicable laws and regulations.
check
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
8:26 a.m.
On 11/11/2013 03:03 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> b. is governed in whole or in part by a license not contained
in the
> list of acceptable licenses for Fedora, currently located at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing, as that list may be
> revised from time to time by the Fedora Project Board;
Hmm, why I could not build there something covered by - let say - Zimbra
Public License 1.3 ?
This is randomly chosen license from "Bad" section where it is forbidden
to modifacate software. But otherwise it is redistributable and open
source. This is not acceptable for Fedora itself, but should be fine for
Copr. IMHO.
We really didn't want to have to review all the non-free licenses out
there to determine whether they were freely distributable without
restriction, especially since we know that the majority of these
licenses are not.
I suppose we could append this and start keeping a list of licenses that
are only "okay for Coprs", but I really am less than excited about this.
Are there people who want this?
> c. is categorized as a "Forbidden Item" at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items,
> as that page may be revised from time to time by the Fedora
> Project Board;
Why we should forbid binary blobs (e.g firmwares)?
But beside those blobs I agree.
In general, the items on the Forbidden list are such because they are
either common proprietary software or known to be legally problematic.
There is not a blanket "no binary blobs" entry in Forbidden_items, so
I'm not sure why you're bringing that point up. It does say no non-free
kernel modules, if that's what you are referring to, it might be
possible to explicitly exclude that item for Coprs.
~tom
==
Fedora Project
9:25 a.m.
On 11/11/2013 03:26 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
I suppose we could append this and start keeping a list of licenses
that
are only "okay for Coprs", but I really am less than excited about this.
Are there people who want this?
We are just starting, so nobody asked yet. Therefore it is not blocker, but it would be
nice to have. As Copr should
have as low barrier to entry as possible.
>> c. is categorized as a "Forbidden Item" at
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items,
>> as that page may be revised from time to time by the Fedora
>> Project Board;
>
> Why we should forbid binary blobs (e.g firmwares)?
> But beside those blobs I agree.
In general, the items on the Forbidden list are such because they are
either common proprietary software or known to be legally problematic.
There is not a blanket "no binary blobs" entry in Forbidden_items, so
I'm not sure why you're bringing that point up. It does say no non-free
kernel modules, if that's what you are referring to, it might be
possible to explicitly exclude that item for Coprs.
Second paragraph. But I read it again and I understand it incorrectly. So this is fine.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
9:35 a.m.
We really didn't want to have to review all the non-free licenses
out
there to determine whether they were freely distributable without
restriction, especially since we know that the majority of these
licenses are not.
I believed that one can use Copr to build and distribute they own
non-free software.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
9:43 a.m.
On 11/11/2013 10:35 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> We really didn't want to have to review all the non-free
licenses out
> there to determine whether they were freely distributable without
> restriction, especially since we know that the majority of these
> licenses are not.
I believed that one can use Copr to build and distribute they own
non-free software.
While I'm not overly excited about this prospect, if this is something
that the Fedora community really wants to do, we can start reviewing
non-free items for distributability. I suspect most people will be
disappointed at how few non-free licenses permit the level of
distributability necessary to be in a Copr.
~tom
==
Fedora Project
9:58 a.m.
On 11/11/2013 04:35 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
I believed that one can use Copr to build and distribute they own
non-free software.
I can not be *any* free software. Because you must provides src.rpm (and if that contains
already build binaries, then
why using build system in first place?) and resulting yum repo is freely accessible.
So if you build your *own* non-free SW and you agree with this, then you in fact make it
free - at least as beer - (and
we are oversimplify and overloading the term free and non-free here).
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
11:59 a.m.
On 11/11/2013 06:26 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
In general, the items on the Forbidden list are such because they
are
either common proprietary software or known to be legally problematic.
The idea of creating a second set of acceptable software licenses for
Coprs is not a good one.
Fedora has a serious and well-deserved reputation for being a safe place
where it comes to freedom and openness. I think it's a very bad idea to
associate the Fedora brand with troublesome licenses and non-free software.
In my mind, the purpose of Coprs was to make it easy and quick for
people to package free/open source software and distribute it to other
Fedora users. Yes, the package may not be as robust as a formally
reviewed packages. But it shouldn't be less-free and more encumbered.
At a minimum, we should take this discussion across Fedora, from the
Board to the devel lists, rather than catch people by surprise when they
grab a Corps package and taint their systems.
At the heart of it, I don't understand - why would we want to allow
non-free content under the Fedora banner? There are plenty of places in
the world for that, and by comparison few that care as much about
freedom in software as Fedora.
- Karsten
--
Karsten 'quaid' Wade
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
4:08 a.m.
On 11/11/2013 06:59 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
At a minimum, we should take this discussion across Fedora, from the
Board to the devel lists, rather than catch people by surprise when they
grab a Corps package and taint their systems.
I file FesCo ticket:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1206
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
3811
days inactive
3823
days old
11 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Karsten Wade -
Mathieu Bridon -
Miro Hrončok -
Miroslav Suchý -
Tom Callaway