Talk:Infrastructure Licensing

From FedoraProject

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(publictest rpm requirement)
 
(hotfixes per request: new section)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
I'm not sure why there is a strict rpm/srpm requirement for publictest machines. This is hard for people that are not packagers. Pointing to a VCS repository branch matching the exact code we run should comply to AGPL perfectly. Is the rpm requirement really needed? -- [[User:Kparal|Kparal]] 14:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 
I'm not sure why there is a strict rpm/srpm requirement for publictest machines. This is hard for people that are not packagers. Pointing to a VCS repository branch matching the exact code we run should comply to AGPL perfectly. Is the rpm requirement really needed? -- [[User:Kparal|Kparal]] 14:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
== hotfixes per request ==
 +
 +
About the whole hotfixes ban issue: Let's suppose I put this text into my webpage footer: ''"The source code for this web app is available at git://<url>. There may be some additional hotfixes currently deployed. If you want the source code including the hotfixes, request it at <url>/<email>/<whatever>."''
 +
 +
This way general public is served and if there is a request for hotfixes, I can pack and send it manually on request. I believe this still complies to AGPL (but IANAL).
 +
 +
If this is ok, there is no need for banning hotfixes, and generally it would simplify things for developers. FLOSS licenses are here for protecting us, not for standing in our way, after all. Let's hope :)
 +
 +
-- [[User:Kparal|Kparal]] 15:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:01, 20 July 2010

[edit] publictest rpm requirement

I'm not sure why there is a strict rpm/srpm requirement for publictest machines. This is hard for people that are not packagers. Pointing to a VCS repository branch matching the exact code we run should comply to AGPL perfectly. Is the rpm requirement really needed? -- Kparal 14:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] hotfixes per request

About the whole hotfixes ban issue: Let's suppose I put this text into my webpage footer: "The source code for this web app is available at git://<url>. There may be some additional hotfixes currently deployed. If you want the source code including the hotfixes, request it at <url>/<email>/<whatever>."

This way general public is served and if there is a request for hotfixes, I can pack and send it manually on request. I believe this still complies to AGPL (but IANAL).

If this is ok, there is no need for banning hotfixes, and generally it would simplify things for developers. FLOSS licenses are here for protecting us, not for standing in our way, after all. Let's hope :)

-- Kparal 15:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)