Hi, During one of my last reviews I've stumbled again over some "Code versus Content" issues. After reviewing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content carefully I've come to the following understanding: Legal status of the content --------------------------- If Fedora somehow publishes the files in any form (source or binary RPM) then they must be under an acceptable license and redistribution must be legally permitted. Additionally it must met the Fedora's criteria described in the packaging guidelines (content should not be offensive, no mp3 files, ...). If the legal as well as Fedora's criteria are not met, the files must not be shipped in any way and so they must be even stripped off from the source files. Question 1: How much investigation is needed from the packager or reviewer? Is asking upstream for an official statement sufficient? Content or example ------------------ If the files can be considered as examples they can just be included in the packages without any interaction with FeSCO. The explicit criteria is not defined, but the following seems quite logical to me: If the files contain rather small demonstrations of the package's capabilities then they are examples (e.g. some midi files in an audio related package). If the files contain a rather detailed or complete work (e.g. if the midi file would contain a thoroughly arranged concert), then they are clearly content. Question 2: If it is undecided, who should make the final decision whether something is just an example? Inclusion of content -------------------- If the files are considered as "real" content and are legally permissable then FeSCO has the final word about the inclusion. Does this summary reflects the intention behind the packaging guidelines correctly? Best regards, Christian -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
