Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...
On 11/14/2013 05:35 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Sex, 2013-11-01 at 09:56 +0100, Simone Caronni wrote:
> On 1 November 2013 02:42, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
> > I'm going to complain about this to FPC, and if they ignore
> the issue,
> > escalate it to FESCo. This kind of package has no business
> being in
> > Fedora!
>
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/362
>
>
> Apparently for the legal team this is acceptable. As I already stated
> before I'm very surprised that it has passed legal review; but if it's
> acceptable for them...
>
> I would feel more comfortable though if these packages would go in
> RPMFusion instead of Fedora. This way Fedora would promote only 100%
> free software and all reviews would not have the FE-LEGAL burden.
>
Hi, Simone, thanks for resuming this thread, I think lpf-skype is
welcome to RPMFusion nonfree , and 100% agree with you.
The problem is just that to
be welcome in rpmfusion, we must get a clear
statement that the lpf-* packages are not eligible for Fedora. At this
point, this is actually not clear since the review (including Spot's
legal check) has approved lpf-spotify-client.
Doesn't make
sense to me Fedora promoted nonfree software . Kelvin is right on saying
this goes against packages guidelines.
But lpf have the capacity to turn around Legal stuff, with
Non-redistributable software like Adobe flash and it is impossible live
without flash at least in my world, so Fedora lose many people, just
because, easily they can't install Non-redistributable software.
I think we should put it on tests on RPMFusion see how it goes and
discuss this with all Fedora community deeply, because it will be a big
change . We can't decide this alone I think.
See above. What we really need now is a fpc decision (#362). I'm
worried that this decision might be postponed without input from spot.
--alec