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
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.)
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream