DISCLAIMER: The following isn't legal advice, I'm not your lawyer (although I am A lawyer).

The script does contain numerous lines of code for the sole purpose of installing proprietary software. For example, the Bioshock video game demo:

"w_metadata bioshock_demo games \ title="Bioshock Demo" \ publisher="2K Games" \ year="2007" \ media="download" \ file1="nzd_BioShockPC.zip" \ installed_exe1="$W_PROGRAMS_X86_WIN/2K Games/BioShock Demo/Builds/Release/Bioshock.exe"

load_bioshock_demo() { if w_workaround_wine_bug 6971 "Setting mwo=force... please upgrade to wine-1.3.23" 1.3.23, then w_call mwo=force fi

w_download http://us.download.nvidia.com/downloads/nZone/demos/nzd_BioShockPC.zip 7a19186602cec5210e4505b58965e8c04945b3cf

w_info "Unzipping demo, installer will start in about 30 seconds." w_try unzip "$W_CACHE/$W_PACKAGE/nzd_BioShockPC.zip" -d "$W_TMP/$W_PACKAGE" cd "$W_TMP/$W_PACKAGE/BioShock PC Demo""

I can't see anything on the Hydra link that refers to FESCO's ruling. Can you please link to that? Hydra itself is AGPLv3-or-later with an OpenSSL linking exception (see https://github.com/vanhauser-thc/thc-hydra/blob/master/LICENSE).

That autodownloader program is interesting but I don't think it's quite identical. As I understand it, autodownloader provides a means to write config files to automate downloading of software from the Internet. An example is given of a proprietary game download config file, but that's it. Any other downloads have to be manually configured by the end-user. Winetricks, on the other hand, is just full of scripts for proprietary software downloading, like the Bioshock example above.

Take care, Adam Saunders, B.A., M.A. Phil., J.D. Barrister and Solicitor The Law Office of Adam Saunders 343 Preston Street, Unit 1150 Ottawa, Ontario K1S 1N4 Tel: 613-317-1713 Fax: 613-703-1830 adamsaunders.ca

On 07/29/2015 10:45 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

Dne 2.1.2013 v 16:47 Tom Callaway napsal(a):

...

I would prefer we did not include this in Fedora, mainly because this script potentially downloads a LOT of third-party stuff from a number of different sources. Checking each item to ensure that the act of providing a tool to directly and clearly download that item is not causing legal concerns (specifically, contributory infringement) will take a long time.

If you still want this in Fedora, I'd ask you to have FESCo consider it with my concerns noted. If they think that the merits of this script outweigh the time to do a full legal audit, then I will tackle it.

You can open a new FESCo ticket here: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/newticket

Resurecting this old thread, because this SW was packaged in Copr now. And Leigh raised Legal Issue on this Copr.

So I have question:

• why providing a tool is/can be infringement. In past Fesco claimed that a tool itself is fine (e.g. hydra) https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/hydra And in fact we have very similar tool in Fedora already: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/autodownloader
• If this is not enough for Fedora, is it good for Copr? Or not?

On 07/31/2015 04:10 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:

Here is another question, if we allow some scripts like packages in Copr, such as winetricks, is it licit to have, even 1 line bash script downloader to fetch other non-free softwares in Copr?

As distasteful as I find such things, there is nothing in the Copr rules that prohibit such hacks, as long as the items they link to are being legally provided by the third-party source, and the terms of their licensing do not forbid third-part linking (I can't imagine why any would, but...).

For example, you can't have a package that just runs wget to download an mp3 implementation without a patent license, for the same reasons that the mp3 implementation itself is not permissible for Copr.

I would personally be very supportive of FESCo adopting the restriction on prohibiting Copr packages which are only useful with external non-free or legally restricted items, but that's a FESCo issue, not a Fedora Legal one.

~tom

== Red Hat

On 07/29/2015 10:45 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

So I have question:

• why providing a tool is/can be infringement. In past Fesco claimed that a tool itself is fine (e.g. hydra) https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/hydra

Well, there are two concerns here:

#1. If the tool exists specifically to point people to something that is known to be patented, by distributing that tool, we could potentially be accused of "contributory infringement": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement#United_States

#2. If the tool exists solely to circumvent Fedora's policies on non-free software code, then that is not permitted in Fedora, because of: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_u...

And in fact we have very similar tool in Fedora already: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/autodownloader

This is a very narrow exception, limited to specific types of content.

• If this is not enough for Fedora, is it good for Copr? Or not?

I believe that "winetricks" is clearly excluded from Fedora on the ground of case #2. My understanding of the copr rules is that this requirement does not apply to packages in coprs.

I do not believe, based on a quick look through "winetricks", that it exists specifically to point to material which is legally problematic. In my assessment, it is pointing to the official sources for a number of Windows binaries and related tools which we could not distribute because of their license terms (non-free). Thus, it does not seem to fall into case #1.

My conclusion: Not okay for Fedora, okay for copr.

~tom

== Red Hat