On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 6:37 PM Benjamin Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I fear these additional terms may make the VST3 SDK unsuitable for packaging in Fedora. Agreed. "or when the SDK is included" stands out to me as a problem, even though it isn't included on our install media. It reminds me of several licenses on the "Bad license list", rejected for their "badgeware" requirements: Zimbra Public License 1.3 (section 3.2): https://www.zimbra.com/license/zimbra-public-license-1-3.html Terracotta Public License 1.0 (section 14): http://svn.terracotta.org/svn/ehcache/tags/ehcache-2.9.0/distribution/src/main/assembly/root/licenses/EHCACHE-TERRACOTTA-LICENSE.txt > If so, the subset of the VST3 SDK bundled in the giada package (which I recently started maintaining) may need to be removed as well. However, I would appreciate input from this list before proceeding in either direction—either removing the bundled SDK (hopefully doing so in %prep would be sufficient) You should remove it from the package sources before uploading it to the lookaside cache. Download the source from upstream, remove the unshippable parts, and then create a new tarball that is used in the spec file. For example, this is what openssl does: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openssl/blob/rawhide/f/openssl.spec#_27 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
