Third party repos

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:35:17AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Paul W. Frields <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wanted to resurface the third party repository topic before we get
> > to next week's meeting.  Currently we have the following page drafted
> > that discusses the new disabled repo feature currently in Fedora 22
> > Workstation:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/3rdPartyApps
> >
> > Currently there's a policy from the Council (nee Board) on third party
> > repos here:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy
> 
> Actually, that policy was written by FESCo.  As noted on the bottom of
> the page, it's a FESCo policy which means changes likely need to go
> through them.

Right, but specifically there's this section:

"Repositories that contain non-free software are not allowed in any
form as they are contrary to the aims of Fedora. If a product should
want to make these repositories discoverable it would require a change
in policy from the Fedora Board. Please be sure that FESCo is included
on any such request to the Board."

That clearly states the request should go to the Board/Council.  Yay
confusion!

> > This policy doesn't address one of the problems I believe we're trying
> > to solve in software -- making developer access to non-libre (but
> > legally OK) tools on Fedora less convoluted and burdensome.
> >
> > So there's not just the question of implementation and curation, but
> > also getting a policy change approved by the Council.
> 
> For clarification the Board did review the FESCo policy at this meeting:
> 
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-01-23/fedora_board.2014-01-23-19.01.html
> 
> The two key points here are:
> 
> "The board believes that shipping repository metadata that points at
> non-free software is incompatible with Fedora's foundations"
> 
> and
> 
> "The board believes that reducing technical barriers to explicit user
> choice to install third-party software (non-free or otherwise) is
> compatible with Fedora's foundations."
> 
> The latter statement led to some of the disabled repo work that
> Richard did, IIRC.  It leaves a lot open to interpretation.

It certainly does.  That's why I think we need a clear commitment to
OK the disabled repo feature.  That makes it possible to ship
metadata, but puts the onus of choice on the user, and allows us to
clearly state Fedora isn't responsible for or supportive of that
content.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
    The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com