Re: [council] #57: Seeking Council feedback/input on draft third party software policy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



#57: Seeking Council feedback/input on draft third party software policy
-------------------------+---------------------
 Reporter:  pfrields     |       Owner:
   Status:  new          |    Priority:  normal
Component:  General      |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  workstation  |
-------------------------+---------------------

Comment (by jwboyer):

 A few comments:

 The inclusion of "legal restrictions" in the Tier 2 definition is odd,
 particularly when using COPRs as an example.  I think it would be better
 phrased as:

 "Tier Two: software hosted and packaged elsewhere, but discoverable and
 installable through Fedora software tooling. This software might be hosted
 elsewhere due to simple preference of upstream maintainer, legal
 restrictions, or inability to comply with Fedora packaging guidelines."

 Alternatively, remove "legal restrictions" from the Tier 2 definition and
 then define a Tier Three:

 "Tier Three: software hosted and packaged elsewhere, but discoverable and
 installable through Fedora software tooling.  This software is hosted
 elsewhere due to upstream preference or legal restrictions.  An example of
 software in the third tier is the Adobe Flash plugin repository.  This
 software must be freely redistributable."

 or something along those lines.  Reasoning is that COPRs must follow the
 same legal inclusion rules that any other Fedora package does, so leaving
 "legal restrictions" in Tier 2 seems ill placed.


 "Registries and similar tools:"

 How feasible is it to enforce the requirements here on third party
 registries?  I don't see us having much influence on how rubygems, NPM, or
 Steam work installing their content both in terms of location of
 installation and ability for our tooling to work with it.



 "Principles/Submitting the application for consideration:"

 Is the audience for this section intended to be the third party
 application provider, or an interested user/community member looking to
 get a third party application included?  I'm concerned about ability to
 influence upstreams here as well.  I would think inclusion would be more
 of a Fedora looking outward process rather than a third party looking into
 Fedora.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/57#comment:1>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
_______________________________________________
council-discuss mailing list
council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and
open source software and content as a collaborative community.




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Outreach]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora KDE]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Linux Audio Users]

  Powered by Linux