Hello.
Why we can[1] add unfiltered Flathub (it contains both patent-encumbered and proprietary software) and we can't[2] add RPM Fusion at the same time?
[1]: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/300 [2]: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/300#comment-793791
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 07:07:22PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev wrote:
Hello.
Why we can[1] add unfiltered Flathub (it contains both patent-encumbered and proprietary software) and we can't[2] add RPM Fusion at the same time?
Flathub is a third-party repository which provides software for various Linux distributions. It doesn't shape what software it carries around what Fedora does not. It fundamentally exists to solve a problem with Linux app distribution to which our policies around licensing, software freedom, and etc., are incidental. This makes it a different case.
On 27/04/2022 21:36, Matthew Miller wrote:
Flathub is a third-party repository which provides software for various Linux distributions. It doesn't shape what software it carries around what Fedora does not. It fundamentally exists to solve a problem with Linux app distribution to which our policies around licensing, software freedom, and etc., are incidental. This makes it a different case.
We can't ship RPM Fusion because it contains patent-encumbered and proprietary software, right? But at the same time, we can ship Flathub which contains the same software. I can't understand that.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 9:29 PM Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org wrote:
We can't ship RPM Fusion because it contains patent-encumbered and proprietary software, right? But at the same time, we can ship Flathub which contains the same software. I can't understand that.
Last I knew, rpmfusion also ships software which includes software for which the repo does not have redistribution rights(*), and software whose primary purpose is for dmca circumvention(**).
While the issue of patent encumbrances is related, these are also different considerations for which counsel will need to render their advice in terms of acceptability.
Given the large variation across jurisdictions regarding IP laws/regulations, the answer is often not clear cut or obvious to those not steeped into the depths of IP law (and, of course, two different lawyers might come to subtly different recommendations from the same set of facts).
(*) As I recall, packagers for flathub must be able to show redistribution rights, or download the related files via an alternative mechanism (which flathub does provide a mechanism to accomplish during install).
(**) And this gets into weeds about redistribution of such software vs simply using such software, and whether referencing/linking to such content is an issue. Which may also vary between jurisdictions.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 9:00 AM Gary Buhrmaster gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 9:29 PM Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org wrote:
We can't ship RPM Fusion because it contains patent-encumbered and proprietary software, right? But at the same time, we can ship Flathub which contains the same software. I can't understand that.
Last I knew, rpmfusion also ships software which includes software for which the repo does not have redistribution rights(*), and software whose primary purpose is for dmca circumvention(**).
While the issue of patent encumbrances is related, these are also different considerations for which counsel will need to render their advice in terms of acceptability.
Given the large variation across jurisdictions regarding IP laws/regulations, the answer is often not clear cut or obvious to those not steeped into the depths of IP law (and, of course, two different lawyers might come to subtly different recommendations from the same set of facts).
(*) As I recall, packagers for flathub must be able to show redistribution rights, or download the related files via an alternative mechanism (which flathub does provide a mechanism to accomplish during install).
(**) And this gets into weeds about redistribution of such software vs simply using such software, and whether referencing/linking to such content is an issue. Which may also vary between jurisdictions.
This is also a bit murky with Flathub, as the download doesn't happen on the local user's side with extra-data-download, it happens in Flathub and repacks it server-side. That means Flathub is doing redistribution. I can see a few examples where this is obviously problematic.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
On 28/04/2022 14:59, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
Last I knew, rpmfusion also ships software which includes software for which the repo does not have redistribution rights(*), and software whose primary purpose is for dmca circumvention(**).
Can you elaborate? Which packages from RPM Fusion repository we can't redistribute?
As I recall, packagers for flathub must be able to show redistribution rights, or download the related files via an alternative mechanism (which flathub does provide a mechanism to accomplish during install).
1. RPM Fusion non-free also requires an explicit distribution permission from developers. 2. For some packages, lpf is used to download data during installation on end-users machines.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 07:13:28PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev wrote:
Can you elaborate? Which packages from RPM Fusion repository we can't redistribute?
Let's not speculate about RPM Fusion software here, please.
On 29/04/2022 18:58, Matthew Miller wrote:
Let's not speculate about RPM Fusion software here, please.
Why not? I think these packages can be moved to the -tainted repository and the base RPM Fusion can be pre-installed by default.
-
Gary Buhrmaster -
Leigh Scott -
Matthew Miller -
Neal Gompa -
Vitaly Zaitsev