The Forgotten "F": A Tale of Fedora's Foundations
Stephen John Smoogen
smooge at gmail.com
Thu Apr 24 16:46:03 UTC 2014
On 24 April 2014 09:56, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 04/24/2014 11:01 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On 24 April 2014 02:49, Christian Schaller <cschalle at redhat.com
> > <mailto:cschalle at redhat.com>> wrote:
> > Well my point is I spoke to Red Hat legal before I even posted the
> > original proposal to open up to more 3rd party repositories some
> > Months ago. There are a lot of repositories that it is perfectly
> > fine for Fedora to include from a legal perspective. But they will
> > need to be reviewed by legal on a case to case basis, going to
> > legal up front and saying 'hey can I include a hypothetical
> > repository' will only yield you the answer 'depends on the
> > repository'.
> > OK cool. What is the plan for when repositories change what they
> > are carrying and add stuff that may be legal for them but not for
> > others? Will there be periodic reviews to make sure that this
> > hasn't happened or some way that we roll back what repositories we
> > recommend?
> At the risk of being glib: What's the plan for periodically
> re-reviewing every package in Fedora to make sure that its sources
> always remain legal?
> It's the same problem and it can only realistically be dealt with by
> "If someone notices, deal with it then."
There are a couple of differences. If we find that dvdcss was added to a
package, we can rip out that package, put an update in the repository and
people who do updates get a package without dvdcss. A third party
repository is one we don't have any control over. If code that the 3rd
party has no legal right to ship or fill in problem here, what is our
remediation to our users? Are we in contributary infringement because we
gave the users a way access to pirated software that we never intended in
the first place? Is there an agreement between us and the third party that
they are to be offering X, that they are legally able to offer X, and that
if they are not they are to take all liability of offering X?
These were things that people were wondering when this came up in the past.
Stephen J Smoogen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel