2:44 p.m.
I have a wish.
I am an product owner of Copr service. Currently, you can build in Copr only packages with
the same good licenses as you
can do in Fedora.
However, in Copr we do not need to be as strict as Fedora. Fedora does not allow license
which are ok to redistribute,
but you cannot modify it.
Do we have some example of license which is:
* forbidden in Fedora,
* the only reason for that is that it does not allow modification?
Can we have at least one such license allowed for Copr?
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
2:50 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 09:44:03PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
I have a wish.
I am an product owner of Copr service. Currently, you can build in
Copr only packages with the same good licenses as you can do in
Fedora.
However, in Copr we do not need to be as strict as Fedora. Fedora does
not allow license which are ok to redistribute, but you cannot modify
it.
Do we have some example of license which is:
* forbidden in Fedora,
* the only reason for that is that it does not allow modification?
Can we have at least one such license allowed for Copr?
Copr performing a build and publishing the built artifact still
constitutes "distributing" in the same manner as we build and
distribute Fedora, right? If that is the case, I imagine we should
not have an exception for Copr.
--
David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com>
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT
3:03 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 3:44 PM Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I have a wish.
I am an product owner of Copr service. Currently, you can build in Copr only packages
with the same good licenses as you
can do in Fedora.
However, in Copr we do not need to be as strict as Fedora. Fedora does not allow license
which are ok to redistribute,
but you cannot modify it.
Do we have some example of license which is:
* forbidden in Fedora,
* the only reason for that is that it does not allow modification?
Can we have at least one such license allowed for Copr?
Is there a specific reason why this is needed? It doesn't sound like
there is some upstream software already under such a license that
someone wants to build in Copr.
Richard
5:08 a.m.
Dne 19. 10. 20 v 21:50 David Cantrell napsal(a):
Copr performing a build and publishing the built artifact still
constitutes "distributing" in the same manner as we build and
distribute Fedora, right? If that is the case, I imagine we should
not have an exception for Copr.
"Distributing" is not an issue.
It's "modification" which we need in Fedora, but we do not need in Copr.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
5:21 a.m.
Dne 19. 10. 20 v 22:03 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
Is there a specific reason why this is needed? It doesn't sound
like
there is some upstream software already under such a license that
someone wants to build in Copr.
We seen bunch of those in past. E.g. Zimbra license is not permitted in Fedora, but can be
fine in Copr, because we do
not grant for modifications.
Or generally for repackaging tarballs. E.g. Koofr (alternative to Dropbox) publish
tarball:
https://koofr.eu/desktop-apps/
I repackaged as an RPM:
https://github.com/xsuchy/koofr/
but I cannot build it in Copr, because it does not have any license.
Right now it is likely something "we do not care, the sources are not there and you
can redistribute as you wish". But
of course that is not lawyerish ok. If we will come that "Freely redistributable
software" (FRS) - is it technically a
term? - is OK in Copr I can ask the company to explicitly release the tar-balls as FRS and
build it in Copr.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
8:38 a.m.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:22 AM Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
We seen bunch of those in past. E.g. Zimbra license is not permitted in Fedora, but can
be fine in Copr, because we do
not grant for modifications.
This would mean that maintainers couldn't patch to fix build issues,
etc, which seems limiting. I understand that it expands the usefulness
of Copr, but it also increases our risk of accidental non-compliance.
I'm not sure the benefit outweighs the risk here.
Philosophically, the right to modify software is a key part of the
FLOSS ethos, and it's not clear to me why copr.fedoraproject.org (as
opposed to someone hosting their own Copr instance) *needs* to be able
to distribute unmodifiable software. (I do understand that it would be
convenient and beneficial.)
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
10:11 a.m.
Dne 22. 10. 20 v 15:38 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
and it's not clear to me why copr.fedoraproject.org (as
opposed to someone hosting their own Copr instance)
Hosting their own instance is far from being trivial.
*needs* to be able
to distribute unmodifiable software. (I do understand that it would be
convenient and beneficial.)
It is about *can*. None of those project on Copr *needs* to be there. People used local
build and people.f.o or various
personal webs before. The existence of Copr just made a lots of thing easier.
That is what I am asking for now - can we make it easier?
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
1289
days inactive
1292
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Ben Cotton -
David Cantrell -
Miroslav Suchý -
Richard Fontana