Unofficial Fedora Remix being advertised on the project front page

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 04:39:43PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> On 10/16/2013 04:06 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >Specific legal queries should probably be directed to legal@, but if you
>> >think this is something that needs clarifying I'll bring it up with the
>> >rest of the board and get it looked at.
>>
>> Clarification on where we draw the line legally and community wise
>> regarding 3rd party remixes is needed I thought that was pretty
>> obvious
>
> No, it's not obvious. I don't know what you're asking for. What are your
> legal concerns?
>
> As far as community concerns go, the only concrete point you've raised
> is that remix-specific bugs sometimes get filed in our bugzilla. How can
> we fix this? Would ensuring that the useragent header in remixes is
> modified and then using that to flag bug submissions be sufficient?

That seems excessive.  We get bugs filed in our bugzilla for rpmfusion
things, virtualbox, vmware, proprietary modules, gentoo kernels, and
other non-Fedora things.  They are mildly irritating but calling it a
burden would be stretching it.  Forcing a user-agent change on remixes
isn't going to fix any of those cases.

In this specific case, I can recall perhaps 2 kernel bugs being filed
about Pidora since it was released.  Both were closed with an
explanation that we don't provide Pidora and the reporters handled it
just fine.

josh