Can we add installation tools for Red Hat products to EPEL? The products are free software, but realistically, the tools are not usable without a Red Hat subscription.
(This would be convenient for installation tools which themselves depend on EPEL packages.)
On 7 September 2015 at 04:00, Florian Weimer fweimer@redhat.com wrote:
Can we add installation tools for Red Hat products to EPEL? The products are free software, but realistically, the tools are not usable without a Red Hat subscription.
(This would be convenient for installation tools which themselves depend on EPEL packages.)
Do you have an example of what you mean? There isn't enough information to know what is being asked.
-- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Florian Weimer fweimer@redhat.com wrote:
but realistically, the tools are not usable without a Red Hat subscription.
Not a legal opinion here, but one of packaging guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_us...
I'm not certain that this particular clause reads on exactly what you're talking about here - IIRC, it was added because someone wanted to add a downloader for some non-free content that was itself free (i.e. the downloader was free software, however the content that it downloaded was not). However, this seems like it at least somewhat applies, since you need a Red Hat subscription to do anything useful with these tools.
Also, as Tom has mentioned, what specific tools are we talking about? Might they be useful if the upstream packages of this Red Hat product were to be installed? This might help in having a more productive discussion.
I'm curious to know how *Red Hat* products could depend on EPEL packages though EPEL is *not* supported by Red Hat.
Regards, H.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:00:18PM +0200, Haïkel wrote:
I'm curious to know how *Red Hat* products could depend on EPEL packages though EPEL is *not* supported by Red Hat.
This is not a valid assumption from what the OP said. An installation tool as he suggested could be independent of the product.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:00:18PM +0200, Haïkel wrote:
I'm curious to know how *Red Hat* products could depend on EPEL packages though EPEL is *not* supported by Red Hat.
This is not a valid assumption from what the OP said. An installation tool as he suggested could be independent of the product.
May I ask what is the legal concern here? Is there a legal issue I'm missing?
I just see EPEL policy questions really.
John
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 04:45:32PM -0500, inode0 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:00:18PM +0200, Haïkel wrote:
I'm curious to know how *Red Hat* products could depend on EPEL packages though EPEL is *not* supported by Red Hat.
This is not a valid assumption from what the OP said. An installation tool as he suggested could be independent of the product.
May I ask what is the legal concern here? Is there a legal issue I'm missing?
I just see EPEL policy questions really.
I don't see a clear legal question either, which I think is why someone asked previously for some more details. I see a packaging guidelines question as well as EPEL policy.
On 09/14/2015 05:17 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 04:45:32PM -0500, inode0 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:00:18PM +0200, Haïkel wrote:
I'm curious to know how *Red Hat* products could depend on EPEL packages though EPEL is *not* supported by Red Hat.
This is not a valid assumption from what the OP said. An installation tool as he suggested could be independent of the product.
May I ask what is the legal concern here? Is there a legal issue I'm missing?
I just see EPEL policy questions really.
I don't see a clear legal question either, which I think is why someone asked previously for some more details. I see a packaging guidelines question as well as EPEL policy.
Correct. I assumed that such policy questions are settled on this list as well, to large degree at least. Am I wrong?
I think the packaging questions would be best addressed to the packaging folks at packaging@lists.fp.o, and the EPEL stuff I believe would go to epel-devel@.
-
Florian Weimer -
Haïkel -
inode0 -
Jon Stanley -
Paul W. Frields -
Stephen John Smoogen