On 20.11.2017 15:33, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
It hasn't changed. I don't know where Miro was going with his comment.
I'm sorry for the unnecessary noise. My point here was that Fedora
packages not downloading parts they need from the wild Internet is
probably (in my opinion) not legal requirement, thus it (in my opinion)
does not apply to Copr.
However, I'm going to stop this, before as it seems I cause more and
more confusion, since I've posted the first reply (I've done that
without much thinking apparently).
On 20 November 2017 at 08:14, Jared K. Smith <jsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I also forgot we are talking about Copr here, which doesn't have to comply
with all the Fedora packaging guidelines.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that
packages in COPR still have to comply with the Fedora packaging requirements
which pertain to copyright/trademark/patent/trade secrets. Or has that
changed and I didn't notice?!?
--
Jared Smith
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
