Where we are and where do we what to go?

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 07.03.2009 21:39, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> I don't particularly care about officialness. It doesn't make any real 
> difference to me but if you want to host a remix, Omega serves that 
> purpose and more mirrors would be good for users using Omega. If we want 
> to introduce process, we need people to participate. Who is stepping up 
> to do the actual work of reviewing it? 

I'd do it for a official RPM Fusion spin if nobody else steps up.

> Endless discussions about this 
> isn't leading to anything concrete here.  In the absence of people 
> helping out, what is the action plan?

Then nothing happens.

>> Not to mention legal aspects. The question
>> """
>> - what to put on the servers aka *legal considerations*: What does it
>> require from RPM Fusion? Do we need to host the SRPMs from Fedora to
>> make sure we comply to the GPL even if the Fedora server drop of the net
>> tomorrow?
>> """
>> in
>> http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2009-March/004090.html 
>>
>> wasn't answered yet afaics
> Fedora servers (and mirrors) dropping off the net isn't a realistic 
> scenario

Sure it sounds unrealistic(¹); but that afaics doesn't matter at all 
afaics (see below).

(¹) and I don't think it's that unrealistic; just for a moment think 
what could happen if <evil company> buys Red Hat tomorrow

> but mirroring SRPM's for the binary content in the live cd(s) 
> would be a good idea nevertheless.  The FSF GPL FAQ answers the specific 
> legal requirements.

Where exactly? Sorry if I sound dumb, but I just want to make sure we do 
everything right from the start to prevent running into situations where 
we'd violate the GPL.

Note that http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Distribution
explicitly says:
"""
The Fedora Project hereby explicitly states that it follows option a) 
above, accompanying the binary code with a complete machine-readable 
copy of the corresponding source code. The Source RPMs are placed on the 
Fedora download servers alongside and concurrent with the Binary RPMs. 
Anyone obtaining any executable form of Fedora by downloading from one 
of Fedora's download servers may also voluntarily download the 
corresponding Source RPMs.

The Fedora Project hereby explicitly states that it does _not_ follow 
option b) or c) above. [...]
"""
Hence we can't distribute our remixes under 3c afaics and point people 
to Fedora, as that would require Fedora to be distributed under 3b.

But I'm not an expert in things like that. Maybe I got something wrong 
and that's why I think it's worth the time to discuss this here.

See also:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.advisory-board/4277

And also:
http://lwn.net/Articles/193852/
"""
MEPIS has typically used binary packages straight from the parent 
repository for large parts of the system. They never carried the source 
code for these unaltered packages.
[...]
Sending people to the parent source repository is not good enough, 
although they got away with it for some time.
"""

CU
knurd