Legal opinion : partly non free graphics

[Andrea Musuruane]

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> wrote:
> 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.

I agree with you. Let's create RPM Fusion repomasters ;)

Can anyone in this situation please step up? We first need to compile
a wiki page with a list of repomasters and then it would be nice to
have a mailing list where someone could mail these requests.

BTW, what happens if no repomaster replies or if not all repomasters reply?

Bye,

Andrea.