[Bug 2130953] New: Review Request: wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130953

Bug ID: 2130953
           Summary: Review Request: wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime
                    for WebAssembly
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL: <spec info here>
SRPM URL: <srpm info here>
Description: <description here>
Fedora Account System Username:

[Bug 2130953] Review Request: wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130953

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Whiteboard|                            |NotReady
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

[Bug 2130953] Review Request: wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130953

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

[Bug 2130953] Review Request: wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130953

Fabio Valentini  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Note that there was a previous attempt to package wasmtime:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051240

It was ultimately abandoned because of unclear licensing status of one of its
components:
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/3912

And finally Legal did not approve the content in question - after months of
waiting and poking, all I got was this response:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051229#c7

Maybe you'll have better luck getting responses from Legal, given that you're
working for Red Hat ...

[Bug 2130953] Review Request: wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130953

--- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1)
> Note that there was a previous attempt to package wasmtime:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051240
>
> It was ultimately abandoned because of unclear licensing status of one of
> its components:
> https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/3912
>
> And finally Legal did not approve the content in question - after months of
> waiting and poking, all I got was this response:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051229#c7
>
> Maybe you'll have better luck getting responses from Legal, given that
> you're working for Red Hat ...

Thank you for the pointers Fabio. We'll see if things have changed at all since
then.

[Bug 2130953] Review Request: wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130953

Petr Pisar  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar  ---
Instead assigning to jnovy, you should block this review by FE-Legal
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/#special_blocker_tickets.

[Bug 2130953] Review Request: wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130953

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |182235 (FE-Legal)

--- Comment #4 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
No spec or srpm or anything right now. But setting FE-Legal regardless as
Comment 3 suggested.

We'll likely have to check with upstream and possibly the crate dependencies
about relicensing from CC0, or perhaps check if a functional package can be
built without any of the problem licenses.

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker

[Bug 2130953] Review Request: wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130953

--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Ah, I probably wasn't clear: The problem wasn't Code that was CC0 licensed, but
rather code / interface definitions that aren't available under an open-source
license *at all*.

[Bug 2130953] Review Request: wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130953

--- Comment #6 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #5)
> Ah, I probably wasn't clear: The problem wasn't Code that was CC0 licensed,
> but rather code / interface definitions that aren't available under an
> open-source license *at all*.

ah ack, gotcha. Thanks

[Bug 2130953] Review Request: wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130953

Petr Pisar  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail]            |[e-mail]

[Bug 2130953] Review Request: wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130953

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |DEFERRED
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
        Last Closed|                            |2022-10-04 19:40:49

--- Comment #7 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
Setting this to CLOSED DEFERRED as it's not a high-enough priority for the
containers team or RH atm, in addition to the other issues as Fabio pointed
out, so I'd rather not spend time on this. If anyone wants to take this
forward, please go right ahead.

Thanks for the comments and feedback everyone.