Legal opinion : partly non free graphics

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 01/22/2010 10:11 AM, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Xavier Bachelot<xavier at bachelot.org>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm reviewing a package that is a re-implementation of a proprietary
>> game. The code is written from scratch, but some of the artwork
>> (graphics) is still taken from the original game. All of the graphics
>> are going to be replaced but it's not finished yet. Roughly half of it
>> has been replaced. Would that be allowed in RPM Fusion or not ?
>> My feeling is the game is not acceptable until all the graphics have
>> been replaced, but I'd like more educated opinions. Actually, it would
>> then be eligible for Fedora, imo.
>>
>> http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1024
>> http://pushover.sf.net
>
> Can the Steering Committee say something about this issue? Xavier is
> blocking the review request because of this.
>

I'm afraid the steering committee is pretty much non functional, and I'm not
sure that is going to change (yes that is a problem, volunteers ?)

But for this specific case I think that what we need is something akin to
Debian's ftpmasters. Since the persons hosting the stuff are the ones who
are exposed to the most legal risk (I think IANAL).

So I would like to suggest the following procedure for cases like this:

1) We need a list of people hosting files
    (Question, do we count builders in this ?, or just public servers
     serving rpmfusion "content")
    (Note this step is a one time exercise, if we keep an up2date list of
     this on the wiki after this)

2) When something like this happens, those people need to vote, if we
prefer anonymous voting, I suggest an independent third party sends
out please enter your vote mails, and collect answers.

3) If there are no "no votes", the package can get in, otherwise it
cannot. Yes this makes no a veto, but that seems the reasonable way
here.

Regards,

Hans