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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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).
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
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
-
Karsten Wade -
Mathieu Bridon -
Miro Hrončok -
Miroslav Suchý -
Tom Callaway