On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 16:23 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Josh Boyer
<jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> At the FESCo meeting today, the following things were decided on 3rd
> party repositories. Some of this is specific to COPRs because those
> are an odd case of 3rd party repositories.
>
> 1) COPRs can provide RPMS with .repo files in them because Red Hat is
> the provider and assumes liability, but those cannot be included in
> the main Fedora repos per FESCo decree.
>
> 2) COPR repos may be searched for applications to install as long as
> the user is explicitly asked to enable the copr before installing
> packages from them.
>
> 3) General 3rd party repositories cannot be searched or enabled due to
> liability concerns.
>
> (NOTE: "searched" in 2 and 3 was intended to cover searching by
> software. Clearly users can manually search for anything.)
>
> 4) FESCo is okay with pointing to specific free software repositories
> in the same way as COPR repos if they are approved by FESCo and Fedora
> Legal. They are not limited in the criteria that they can choose to
> apply.
>
> 5) For non-free sofware repositories, FESCo is not changing exisiting
> policy. Non-free software repositories are not allowed. Permission to
> make these discoverable via searching software would require a change
> in policy from the Fedora Board.
>
> In short, this means products can request approval of specific 3rd
> party free software repositories. If approved, they can include their
> contents along with COPR repos in application searches a user does and
> offer to install them with a warning that they come from a 3rd party,
> non-Fedora repo. Repositories containing non-free software cannot be
> enabled by default or made discoverable through software.
The FESCo ticket documenting all of this is here:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1201
The discussion in that ticket was focused almost entirely on coprs,
which are really not that relevant when it comes to third-party
software.
I have no problem with the 'cannot be enabled by default' part of the
last sentence, but 'cannot be made discoverable' is bordering on
censorship - fesco does not get to decide what users do with their
fedora systems.
Lastly: was any attempt made to invite Christian to the Fesco meeting ?
I find it somewhat questionable to decide this item while the main
proponent who is cc'ed in the ticket is on a plane to Lahore.