On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 16:23 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > At the FESCo meeting today, the following things were decided on 3rd > > party repositories. Some of this is specific to COPRs because those > > are an odd case of 3rd party repositories. > > > > 1) COPRs can provide RPMS with .repo files in them because Red Hat is > > the provider and assumes liability, but those cannot be included in > > the main Fedora repos per FESCo decree. > > > > 2) COPR repos may be searched for applications to install as long as > > the user is explicitly asked to enable the copr before installing > > packages from them. > > > > 3) General 3rd party repositories cannot be searched or enabled due to > > liability concerns. > > > > (NOTE: "searched" in 2 and 3 was intended to cover searching by > > software. Clearly users can manually search for anything.) > > > > 4) FESCo is okay with pointing to specific free software repositories > > in the same way as COPR repos if they are approved by FESCo and Fedora > > Legal. They are not limited in the criteria that they can choose to > > apply. > > > > 5) For non-free sofware repositories, FESCo is not changing exisiting > > policy. Non-free software repositories are not allowed. Permission to > > make these discoverable via searching software would require a change > > in policy from the Fedora Board. > > > > In short, this means products can request approval of specific 3rd > > party free software repositories. If approved, they can include their > > contents along with COPR repos in application searches a user does and > > offer to install them with a warning that they come from a 3rd party, > > non-Fedora repo. Repositories containing non-free software cannot be > > enabled by default or made discoverable through software. > > The FESCo ticket documenting all of this is here: > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1201 The discussion in that ticket was focused almost entirely on coprs, which are really not that relevant when it comes to third-party software. I have no problem with the 'cannot be enabled by default' part of the last sentence, but 'cannot be made discoverable' is bordering on censorship - fesco does not get to decide what users do with their fedora systems. Lastly: was any attempt made to invite Christian to the Fesco meeting ? I find it somewhat questionable to decide this item while the main proponent who is cc'ed in the ticket is on a plane to Lahore. -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
