Dne 19. 10. 20 v 22:03 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
Is there a specific reason why this is needed? It doesn't sound like
there is some upstream software already under such a license that
someone wants to build in Copr.
We seen bunch of those in past. E.g. Zimbra license is not permitted in Fedora, but can be fine in Copr, because we do
not grant for modifications.
Or generally for repackaging tarballs. E.g. Koofr (alternative to Dropbox) publish tarball:
https://koofr.eu/desktop-apps/
I repackaged as an RPM:
https://github.com/xsuchy/koofr/
but I cannot build it in Copr, because it does not have any license.
Right now it is likely something "we do not care, the sources are not there and you can redistribute as you wish". But
of course that is not lawyerish ok. If we will come that "Freely redistributable software" (FRS) - is it technically a
term? - is OK in Copr I can ask the company to explicitly release the tar-balls as FRS and build it in Copr.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
