On Qua, 2014-01-29 at 11:22 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 1/29/14, RPM Fusion Bugzilla <noreply(a)rpmfusion.org> wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152
> > --- Comment #38 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com> 2014-01-29
> > 08:56:22
> > CET ---
> > (In reply to comment #30)
> > Less legal/policy concerns but will give more work to develop.
> Not necessarily. See spot's comment in comment #31 link. Basically, if
> we just points to a repo provided by an ISV like Dropbox it's actually
> the ISV which is distributing. If we repackage it we becomes more
> responsible for the contents.
> > what you mean with "Although we comply with the GL" ?
> The whole idea witjh the current GL is that we should not make
> packages from "foreign" repos available, with FESCO/Fedora Legal
> providing exemptions in some cases. lpf is an exception, but it has
> beed reviewed and discussed within the FPC.
> > if I have time in future I'll will try do frp idea, as a sub project of
> > lpf
> > :)
> Contributions always welcome! That said, it will probably need a new
> discussion with FPC since this is an entirely new way of handling this
> sensitive area.
> Again: this request is more like a test of the legal/policy
> ramifications for packaged yum configurations in rpmfusion. Anyone,
> out there?
Sorry, above all, what means "GL" ?
Sérgio M. B.