Dne 19. 10. 20 v 22:03 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
Is there a specific reason why this is needed? It doesn't sound
like
there is some upstream software already under such a license that
someone wants to build in Copr.
We seen bunch of those in past. E.g. Zimbra license is not permitted in Fedora, but can be
fine in Copr, because we do
not grant for modifications.
Or generally for repackaging tarballs. E.g. Koofr (alternative to Dropbox) publish
tarball:
https://koofr.eu/desktop-apps/
I repackaged as an RPM:
https://github.com/xsuchy/koofr/
but I cannot build it in Copr, because it does not have any license.
Right now it is likely something "we do not care, the sources are not there and you
can redistribute as you wish". But
of course that is not lawyerish ok. If we will come that "Freely redistributable
software" (FRS) - is it technically a
term? - is OK in Copr I can ask the company to explicitly release the tar-balls as FRS and
build it in Copr.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys