[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Digging up an old dead thread ...

On 06/24/2009 04:24 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> 1. First. What would be acceptable? Anything under a acceptable license
> to Fedora? So, I can make a 100MB package of all the pictures I have
> taken of my dogs as long as the license is ok? And can update it weekly
> as I take new ones? 

Well, acceptable license is only one of the points here, but in your
specific scenario, I suppose it would be okay.

> 2. Is content thats under a Fedora acceptable license, but can't be
> read/used by any free tools acceptable? Ie, could someone package a
> flash movie?

IMHO, the answer is no.

From: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content

"The rule is this:

If the content enhances the OS user experience, then the content is OK
to be packaged in Fedora. This means, for example, that things like:
fonts, themes, clipart, and wallpaper are OK."

Content that has no way to be used on Fedora doesn't have the
possibility of enhancing the OS user experience. However, your example
isn't a good one, as Fedora does include a flash player, so flash video
probably would be fine (assuming it works with the Fedora included flash

> 3. Is rpm the right format for this content? Perhaps it would be better
> to get people working on some kind of application/viewer thing that
> could hit the various CC content and search and download it easily for
> Fedora folks? Why should we package and duplicate this content for just
> Fedora users?

That's a good question. I'll leave it to more qualified people to
answer, however, there is precedence for packaging up content in Fedora
in RPM.

> 4. How would we package some content. Ie, random pictures, or clip art,
> or movies. If multiple things in fedora can use them, would they go
> into some kind of /usr/share/CC-STUFF/ dir? or what?

Also a good question. A tiered hierarchy seems sane, along the lines of
/usr/share/pixmaps, e.g. /usr/share/books.

> 5. What about content thats licensed ok, but is
> Obscene/Adult/Objectionable/Gross? Who decides those cases? Is there
> any review of content? Against what guidelines?

quoting again from the Code Vs Content section:

"Content still has to be reviewed for inclusion. It must have an open
source compatible license, must not be legally questionable. In
addition, there are several additional restrictions for content:

    * Content must not be pornographic, or contain nudity, whether
animated, simulated, or photographed. There are better places on the
Internet to get porn.
    * Content should not be offensive, discriminatory, or derogatory. If
you're not sure if a piece of content is one of these things, it
probably is.
    * All content is subject to review by FESCo, who has the final say
on whether or not it can be included.

Some examples of content which is permissable:

    * Package documentation or help files
    * Clipart for use in office suites
    * Background images (non-offensive, discriminatory, with permission
to freely redistribute)
    * Fonts (under an open source license, with no ownership/legal concerns)
    * Game levels are not considered content, since games without levels
would be non functional.
    * Sound or graphics included with the source tarball that the
program or theme uses (or the documentation uses) are acceptable.
    * Game music or audio content is permissible, as long as the content
is freely distributable without restriction, and the format is not
patent encumbered.
    * Example files included with the source tarball are not considered

Some examples of content which are not permissable:

    * Comic book art files
    * Religious texts
    * mp3 files (patent encumbered)

If you are unsure if something is considered approved content, ask on

Hope that helps,


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]