legal March 2014

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

19 participants
13 discussions

Is this reference to rpmfusion OK?
by Bruno Wolff III 14 Mar '14

14 Mar '14

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.)

3 4

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal flag raised on PPSSPP
by Miroslav Suchý 13 Mar '14

13 Mar '14

Hi, 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 > codecs? > > Launchpad allows > https://help.launchpad.net/Legal > > https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/ > > 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? Mirek

9 13

Retaining old binaries and SRPMs vs package git
by Colin Walters 10 Mar '14

10 Mar '14

Hi, 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. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=482681 is sufficient. 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!

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal March 2014