On 07/26/2013 12:30 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 21:58, Robert Marcano a écrit :
The real problem with publishing things is that if I distribute binaries
of many things I must follow the license, some say I need to distribute
sources, some say that I need to distribute a copy of the license, etc.
Making files downloadable by default adds to the distributor more work
(legal) because they must comply with their licenses. So if I put an
open service of an Apache licensed web application, I will start
distributing fonts with other licenses without ever noticing, for
example GPL+3 (nothing against any license, only examples of the things
people should care when distributing free/open licensed code/assets)
Again, the fonts available in Fedora are carefully vetted and none of them
have redistribution restrictions (and even for those with GPLish licenses
a large part of the font community considers the font file is the font
source, so you can't redistribute one without the other)
I understand your point but please take another example.
There isn't another example, with the exception of Javascript code that
is planned to be made available too. I don't consider that the
distribution must make the decision to make me a distributor of assets I
am not using on one of the web applications I decided to publish on my
webserver, those web applications must make available those assets and
only those assets. To force me to blacklist is wrong. Javascript code is
worse in this aspect because it can be used as an attack vector, finding
vulnerabilities that allow someone to inject Javascript code from the
same server
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
