On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 06:15:37PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > Hi, > > I think I had read somehwere, or we just discussed it (?), that for > tarballs carrying potential patent infringing bits it is not enough to > build/package the other parts, but that also the src.rpm needs to be > kept clean. Indeed, and it is similar for packages with non-free parts, or parts with conflicting licenses. > Am I remembering correctly? Do we have something like a procedure in > the wiki on creating these modified tarballs and commenting the > specfile approriately (I couldn't find anything when searching for > "patents", but there were perhaps too many hits ...). > > If not shouldn't we come up with one? The procedure needs to be > documented and be reproducable for reviewers to be able to confirm > that the tarball "matches" upstream indeed, since they won't have any > nice md5sum method to compare. What I do is that I provide a script in SourceXX, which can be used to unpack, remove the offending files and repack. Then a reviewer may do a diff to verify that the remaining files are the same. If the patented code is mixed with non-patented code, it becomes harder, maybe you can then make a diff and post it somewhere where patents are not problematic and point to that diff in the bugzilla ticket. I don't know if it is legal to put the url of the diff in a comment in the spec file. Even in the bugzilla ticket I don't know. You can have a look at the cernlib and grads packages for examples. Maybe this could be more formally stated. -- Pat -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
