Fedora board vote and way forward

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 January 2014 10:18, Christian Schaller <cschalle at redhat.com> wrote:
>> ...writing up a technical specification of the product...
>
> I think this is going to be hard until we know more about the legal
> side of things and what we're allowed to do. From my point of view, if
> we can ship a google-chrome.repo file that's disabled and some
> pre-prepared appstream metadata, it makes building the required
> functionality in gnome-software quite easy. We can show the non-free
> applications, and if the user clicks install we just need to show some
> kind of agreement, download the metadata and then install the
> application.

The Board decision disallows this.

> If we can't ship the AppStream metadata or the disabled repo file then
> we need some way of querying for search terms, for instance calling
> out to a webservice on apps.fedoraproject.org that returns results for
> a search term of "chrome" -- this will also need to return icons,
> perhaps screenshots, and also some repo parameters and possible EULA
> text. This would be possible to implement in a gnome-software plugin
> and a chunk of new functionality in PackageKit, and would also need a
> new webservice. So again, possible, just a little harder to implement.

This is something that could be allowable, yes.  Bill Nottingham came
up with a similar cross-distro style service idea that is of course
much broader, but might be easier to get vendors to participate in.

josh