On 11/11/2013 03:03 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: >> b. is governed in whole or in part by a license not contained in the >> list of acceptable licenses for Fedora, currently located at >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing, as that list may be >> revised from time to time by the Fedora Project Board; > > Hmm, why I could not build there something covered by - let say - Zimbra > Public License 1.3 ? > This is randomly chosen license from "Bad" section where it is forbidden > to modifacate software. But otherwise it is redistributable and open > source. This is not acceptable for Fedora itself, but should be fine for > Copr. IMHO. We really didn't want to have to review all the non-free licenses out there to determine whether they were freely distributable without restriction, especially since we know that the majority of these licenses are not. I suppose we could append this and start keeping a list of licenses that are only "okay for Coprs", but I really am less than excited about this. Are there people who want this? >> c. is categorized as a "Forbidden Item" at >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items, >> as that page may be revised from time to time by the Fedora >> Project Board; > > Why we should forbid binary blobs (e.g firmwares)? > But beside those blobs I agree. In general, the items on the Forbidden list are such because they are either common proprietary software or known to be legally problematic. There is not a blanket "no binary blobs" entry in Forbidden_items, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that point up. It does say no non-free kernel modules, if that's what you are referring to, it might be possible to explicitly exclude that item for Coprs. ~tom == Fedora Project _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
