-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/24/2014 11:01 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > On 24 April 2014 02:49, Christian Schaller <cschalle@xxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:cschalle@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > Well my point is I spoke to Red Hat legal before I even posted the > original proposal to open up to more 3rd party repositories some > Months ago. There are a lot of repositories that it is perfectly > fine for Fedora to include from a legal perspective. But they will > need to be reviewed by legal on a case to case basis, going to > legal up front and saying 'hey can I include a hypothetical > repository' will only yield you the answer 'depends on the > repository'. > > > OK cool. What is the plan for when repositories change what they > are carrying and add stuff that may be legal for them but not for > others? Will there be periodic reviews to make sure that this > hasn't happened or some way that we roll back what repositories we > recommend? > At the risk of being glib: What's the plan for periodically re-reviewing every package in Fedora to make sure that its sources always remain legal? It's the same problem and it can only realistically be dealt with by "If someone notices, deal with it then." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlNZNCwACgkQeiVVYja6o6O76gCcC/QdnvusmdalnbqV/X2Bftw/ 8L4AoKtkgQGO4EhVGNlfXhgWe6GDgpBd =Gx5v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
