Non-free tarball checked in

[Martin Erik Werner]

On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 12:21 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> 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:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > 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

So for something that is, say CC-BY-NonCommercial, it would be okay to
ship in the SRPM but not in the RPM?

-- 
Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120312/06ece269/attachment.sig>