legal June 2020

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

13 participants
12 discussions

Packaging exfatprogs for Fedora
by Vojtěch Trefný 03 Jun '20

03 Jun '20

Hi, I have a question about exFAT in Fedora. I would like to package exfatprogs[1] (new userspace exFAT utilities from Samsung) for Fedora but exFAT is still listed in the forbidden items[2]. I assume this was not updated when Microsoft allowed including the exFAT driver in kernel and exFAT should be allowed now. But I'm not a legal expert so it's possible I'm missing something here. So my question is simple: can we package exfatprogs for Fedora now or not? Thanks. [1] https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items -- Vojtech Trefny

1 1

Legal blockers regarding WSL release?
by CJ Harries 02 Jun '20

02 Jun '20

In May 2017, Rich Turner from Microsoft mentioned that a Fedora release would be coming to WSL (https://web.archive.org/web/https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/new-…) In June 2019, Matthew Miller from Fedora said there was a "blocker [in] the legal agreement for [the Fedora Project] to put the installer in the [Microsoft] store" (https://web.archive.org/web/https://twitter.com/mattdm/status/1140957608653…) I'm unable to find anything on the wiki (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Legal) or here in the legal mailing list that explains either the cancellation or the blockers. Normally I'm able to find great explanations regarding legal issues, so this must have slipped through the cracks. 1. What are the legal blockers in the MS App Developer Agreement (https://web.archive.org/web/https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/windows/… I noticed some language regarding FOSS that might not be GPL compatible. If that's not the right agreement, which one is and what are its issues? 2. WSL 2 introduced a boilerplate project to connect new distros (http://web.archive.org/web/https://github.com/microsoft/WSL-DistroLauncher) I believe (haven't tested; please correct me if wrong) it can be run only using newer Microsoft FOSS tools under an MIT license. Could this tool be used in an official capacity? If not, what are the blockers? 3. WSL 1 was explicitly not FOSS (http://web.archive.org/web/https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/1) As far as I know, WSL 2 still relies on Hyper-V, so, even hypothetically supposing everything else about WSL 2 is open source, could WSL 2 fall under acceptable licensing criteria? Microsoft discussed some of the tweaks they made if the hypothetical is unrealistic (http://web.archive.org/web/https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/shipp…) 4. Tom Callaway (a Fedora legal liaison w/o notable mutant powers http://web.archive.org/web/https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Spot) provided some excellent suggestions for Microsoft two years ago regarding Microsoft packages being accepted by the Fedora Project (http://web.archive.org/web/https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le…) Are there similar suggestions users can send to Microsoft to champion acceptance? In doing research to present these questions, I think I have a general idea regarding WSL. However, earlier in the legal thread I linked (http://web.archive.org/web/https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le…) Tom explicitly asks for no idle speculation, so I'd prefer an experienced opinion. I really appreciate all the hard work that goes into this. As a developer, not a lawyer, this topic can be very esoteric at times. Microsoft has been making an effort to move away from EEE in recent years, so getting some perspective from the Fedora team regarding their efforts would be very useful to FOSS stewards. Thanks for your time! Have a rad day.

5 5

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal June 2020