Proposal: Revision of policy surrounding 3rd party and non-free software

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at
Tue Jan 21 20:21:46 UTC 2014

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 02:46:16PM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Toshio Kuratomi" <a.badger at>
> > To: "Fedora community advisory board" <advisory-board at>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:01:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: Proposal: Revision of policy surrounding 3rd party and non-free	software
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:56:37PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at>
> > > wrote:
> > 
> > > > Taking that as a basis to start this conversation, most of this policy
> > > > should go to FESCo to decide as it came up just a few months ago and
> > > > resulted in this FESCo policy:
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Yeah, that was the result of Christian making this this request to
> > > FESCo.  So I'm confused why you think it should go _back_ to FESCo,
> > > when FESCo clearly said non-libre software repositories were something
> > > that would need to be discussed by the Board.
> > > 
> > Christian's proposal contains more than just a question of whether the Board
> > okays inclusion of pointers to non-libre software.  As pointed out in the
> > last paragraph of my previous message, it's also a proposal for the third
> > party repository rules themselves (some of which conflict with FESCo's
> > current policy).
> Well since we are saying that the 3rd parties are 100% responsible for supporting
> their own users, it would be a bit silly to try to impose our packaging rules on them.
> We can't have it both ways here, both putting up big warning signs saying that this is unsupported
> 3rd party software and at the same time try to tell for instance Google how they build and package their
> software.
This particular portion has nothing to do with packaging guidelines
whatsoever.  The current policy referened is the FESCo Third Party
Repository Policy (link is in the quotation).

However, the current FESCo policy does indirectly let FESCo enforce
(if this were to happen, likely a subset) of the pakcaging guidelines if
they so choose as FESCo is able to approve or remove approval for us to ship
a pointer to a specific repository.  If I remember correctly, FESCo didn't
mention wanting to use that approval to enforce the packaging guidelines but
did mention using it to resolve questions like: "Would we want to point our
users at repositories that were known to be buggy, had frequent or unfixed
security issues, caused problems for packages in the Fedora repository

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the advisory-board mailing list