On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 6:37 PM Benjamin Beasley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I fear these additional terms may make the VST3 SDK unsuitable for packaging > in Fedora.
Agreed. "or when the SDK is included" stands out to me as a problem, even though it isn't included on our install media. It reminds me of several licenses on the "Bad license list", rejected for their "badgeware" requirements: Zimbra Public License 1.3 (section 3.2): https://www.zimbra.com/license/zimbra-public-license-1-3.html Terracotta Public License 1.0 (section 14): http://svn.terracotta.org/svn/ehcache/tags/ehcache-2.9.0/distribution/src/main/assembly/root/licenses/EHCACHE-TERRACOTTA-LICENSE.txt > If so, the subset of the VST3 SDK bundled in the giada package (which I > recently started maintaining) may need to be removed as well. However, I > would appreciate input from this list before proceeding in either > direction—either removing the bundled SDK (hopefully doing so in %prep would > be sufficient) You should remove it from the package sources before uploading it to the lookaside cache. Download the source from upstream, remove the unshippable parts, and then create a new tarball that is used in the spec file. For example, this is what openssl does: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openssl/blob/rawhide/f/openssl.spec#_27 -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
