On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 12:21 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga <mattia.verga@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto: > >> > >> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 > >> Stephen Gallagher<sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a > >>>>> non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball > >>>>> has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I > >>>>> need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how > >>>>> do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. > >>>> > >>>> Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content > >>>> should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't > >>>> install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently > >>>> commenting on a review where this might apply. > >>> > >>> Yes, see > >>> > >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code > >> > >> Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items. > > > > And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not > > installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the > > source be purged from those? > > If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes. > > -J So for something that is, say CC-BY-NonCommercial, it would be okay to ship in the SRPM but not in the RPM? -- Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner@xxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
