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 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
