Non-free tarball checked in

[Jon Ciesla]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga <mattia.verga at tiscali.it> wrote:
> Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400
>> Stephen Gallagher<sgallagh at redhat.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a
>>>>> non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball
>>>>> has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I
>>>>> need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how
>>>>> do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68.
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content
>>>> should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't
>>>> install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently
>>>> commenting on a review where this might apply.
>>>
>>> Yes, see
>>>
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code
>>
>> Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items.
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAk9d7QkACgkQkSxm47BaWffvXQCdEKN9d0P8pl+UKPRiTRNUDoPc
>> Rj8AmQGNcKVwqVkMX4C82RCw1t8qyO0E
>> =/9AT
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not
> installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the
> source be purged from those?

If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes.

-J

> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie