On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:22 AM Miroslav Suchý <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > This would mean that maintainers couldn't patch to fix build issues, etc, which seems limiting. I understand that it expands the usefulness of Copr, but it also increases our risk of accidental non-compliance. I'm not sure the benefit outweighs the risk here. Philosophically, the right to modify software is a key part of the FLOSS ethos, and it's not clear to me why copr.fedoraproject.org (as opposed to someone hosting their own Copr instance) *needs* to be able to distribute unmodifiable software. (I do understand that it would be convenient and beneficial.) -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis _______________________________________________ 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
