[Fedora-legal-list] winetricks

[Tom Callaway]

On 07/29/2015 10:45 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> So I have question:
>  * why providing a tool is/can be infringement. In past Fesco claimed that a tool itself is fine (e.g. hydra)
>    https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/hydra

Well, there are two concerns here:

#1. If the tool exists specifically to point people to something that is
known to be patented, by distributing that tool, we could potentially be
accused of "contributory infringement":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement#United_States

#2. If the tool exists solely to circumvent Fedora's policies on
non-free software code, then that is not permitted in Fedora, because of:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_bits

>    And in fact we have very similar tool in Fedora already:
>    https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/autodownloader

This is a very narrow exception, limited to specific types of content.

>  * If this is not enough for Fedora, is it good for Copr? Or not?

I believe that "winetricks" is clearly excluded from Fedora on the
ground of case #2. My understanding of the copr rules is that this
requirement does not apply to packages in coprs.

I do not believe, based on a quick look through "winetricks", that it
exists specifically to point to material which is legally problematic.
In my assessment, it is pointing to the official sources for a number of
Windows binaries and related tools which we could not distribute because
of their license terms (non-free). Thus, it does not seem to fall into
case #1.

My conclusion: Not okay for Fedora, okay for copr.

~tom

==
Red Hat