On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:32:23PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On 2009-02-24 at 11:26:14 -0500, "Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)"
> <bochecha@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >> Please let me know what wiki page is referring to rpmfusion, as I will
> >> need to make sure it is carefully and appropriately worded.
> >
> > Isn't that the best way of being sure that one day, someone will speak
> > about RPMFusion and won't let you know as he saw other pages were
> > talking about it and he never read the current thread ?
> >
> > Unless you keep lurking Special:RecentChanges [1], how can you be
> > certain not to miss some ?
>
> No, but if there is an "approved" location for this information, people
> will be more likely to link to it rather than to try to reproduce it.
>
> So, I've made:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:ThirdPartyRepositories
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThirdPartyRepositories is a redirect to
> that).
>
> If you want me to add a third party repository to that page, please let
> me know.

Can you please add ATrpms?

> The only criteria is this:
>
> 1) The repository can not be involved in a claim of infringement
> (copyright, patent, trademark, license), nor can I or Red Hat be aware
> of any material which leads us to believe that infringement is likely.
> 2) The repository must not duplicate packages contained within the
> Fedora package repositories.

The second one isn't a legal issue, is it? And some in the Fedora
community do appreciate that some packages are offered in an extended
way adding build time dependencies that are not in Fedora itself for
various reasons (probably for similar reasons the third party repo
exist at the first place).

Wrt ATrpms while the tendency has been to remove as much as possible
overlap I think we are not 100% there to having a solely add-on repo.

What I want to say is that don't make policies that will only allow
the One and Only Repo to pass.

> However, Fedora reserves the right to list or omit repositories, and is
> not required to do so, even if it meets this criteria.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Axel Thimm wrote:

> The second one isn't a legal issue, is it?

Yeah, you're right, it isn't. In fact, now that I'm aware of the other
list (OtherRepositories), I'm just going to make my page redirect to it.

~spot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:

> Please let me know what wiki page is referring to rpmfusion, as I will
> need to make sure it is carefully and appropriately worded.
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dell_Inspiron_Mini_9

I've not touched it since my first clean-up since I'm not sure what
the safe wording would be.

Would it be preferable to have a single page on the WIki, maintained
by fedora-legal, that describes RPM Fusion in terms that are legally
safe, and then you can require -- ahem -- encourage -- Wiki editors to
link to this page rather than RPM Fusion directly? That way we can
keep track of these references.

(Make the notice visible in the edit window to be safe).


Thanks,

--
miʃel salim • http://hircus.jaiku.com/
IUCS • msalim@cs.indiana.edu
Fedora • salimma@fedoraproject.org
MacPorts • hircus@macports.org

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Michel Salim <michel.sylvan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Please let me know what wiki page is referring to rpmfusion, as I will
>> need to make sure it is carefully and appropriately worded.
>>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dell_Inspiron_Mini_9
>
> I've not touched it since my first clean-up since I'm not sure what
> the safe wording would be.
>
> Would it be preferable to have a single page on the WIki, maintained
> by fedora-legal, that describes RPM Fusion in terms that are legally
> safe, and then you can require -- ahem -- encourage -- Wiki editors to
> link to this page rather than RPM Fusion directly? That way we can
> keep track of these references.
>
> (Make the notice visible in the edit window to be safe).
>
Was replying before noticing in your subsequent email that you've done
exactly that. My mistake. The 'make notice visible' suggestion is
probably still relevant though.

Thanks,

--
miʃel salim • http://hircus.jaiku.com/
IUCS • msalim@cs.indiana.edu
Fedora • salimma@fedoraproject.org
MacPorts • hircus@macports.org

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 23:04 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:32:23PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > The only criteria is this:
> >
> > 1) The repository can not be involved in a claim of infringement
> > (copyright, patent, trademark, license), nor can I or Red Hat be aware
> > of any material which leads us to believe that infringement is likely.
> > 2) The repository must not duplicate packages contained within the
> > Fedora package repositories.
>
> The second one isn't a legal issue, is it? And some in the Fedora
> community do appreciate that some packages are offered in an extended
> way adding build time dependencies that are not in Fedora itself for
> various reasons (probably for similar reasons the third party repo
> exist at the first place).
>
> Wrt ATrpms while the tendency has been to remove as much as possible
> overlap I think we are not 100% there to having a solely add-on repo.
>
> What I want to say is that don't make policies that will only allow
> the One and Only Repo to pass.

Doing this does place a significant burden on Fedora though, esp. on
upgrades (and esp. on distro. upgrades). It would be _much_ nicer if the
override packages would live in a separate repo. from the purely add-on
packages, this also significantly helps out the users who know they can
enable repo XYZ because they won't be getting anything they didn't ask
for explicitly.

--
James Antill <james@fedoraproject.org>
Fedora

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:53:00AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 23:04 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:32:23PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > > The only criteria is this:
> > >
> > > 1) The repository can not be involved in a claim of infringement
> > > (copyright, patent, trademark, license), nor can I or Red Hat be aware
> > > of any material which leads us to believe that infringement is likely.
> > > 2) The repository must not duplicate packages contained within the
> > > Fedora package repositories.
> >
> > The second one isn't a legal issue, is it? And some in the Fedora
> > community do appreciate that some packages are offered in an extended
> > way adding build time dependencies that are not in Fedora itself for
> > various reasons (probably for similar reasons the third party repo
> > exist at the first place).
> >
> > Wrt ATrpms while the tendency has been to remove as much as possible
> > overlap I think we are not 100% there to having a solely add-on repo.
> >
> > What I want to say is that don't make policies that will only allow
> > the One and Only Repo to pass.
>
> Doing this does place a significant burden on Fedora though, esp. on
> upgrades (and esp. on distro. upgrades). It would be _much_ nicer if the
> override packages would live in a separate repo. from the purely add-on
> packages, this also significantly helps out the users who know they can
> enable repo XYZ because they won't be getting anything they didn't ask
> for explicitly.

Yes, that's the long term plan. It's already implemented for the RHEL5
bits, but Fedora is a different beast, as packages can suddenly appear
and make a pure add-on to an overlapping one. So it needs an automated
"separator" script. RHEL5 is much easier as the package set is only
altered every couple of months and doesn't really introduce that many
new packages even then.

It's on the TODO list (but not really at the top). Whether one
personally agrees on whether replacement packages are good or bad,
shifting the choice to the user is the best way to stop these
discussions in all parties' interest.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list