On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 9:04 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
>
> Is the original reason for this package being in RPM Fusion instead of
> Fedora even valid? https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34#c0
> said:
>
> This package cannot be allowed in Fedora since it retrieve information
> from websites and thus could possibly violate EULA.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what the above means
EULA = End User License Agreement. As you may
be aware, some of the grabbers depended on screen
scraping that may (and did?) intentionally ignored
the EULA of the site(s) in question in regards to (not)
screen scraping, or scraped content that had other
IP associated with it (some/all of the descriptions
were asserted to be copyrighted in some jurisdictions),
and some sites have explicit statements that the content
may not be used outside of the site itself for other
purposes. I also believe one/more grabbers used
sources that stated it was only for use by people
using a certain service or living in a certain area.
At least one grabber appeared to work to bypass the
requirement that use was strictly authorized/limited
to subscribers of the underlying service. These
latter issues would be "fields of use" restrictions
that Fedora legal has mostly strictly prohibited.
I don't know if any of those are still true for any/all
the grabbers in question, nor if any of the current
EULA restrictions or copyright claims or fields of
use restrictions are valid in any/all jurisdictions, but
someone would have to do that research, grabber
by grabber, as any grabber that violates the
various EULA/T&Cs may not have any possible
"non-infringing" use, which is how youtube-dl
attempts to thread the legal needle.
> and I can't find anything
> that would forbid packaging website grabbers at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items or
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/ .
>
> I'd say youtube-dl or yt-dlp set a precedent here and xmltv could be
> moved to Fedora proper.
A subset of the grabbers could, as they clearly
use non-infringing APIs from paid guide service
providers. However, having only a subset of
grabbers in Fedora would likely mean yet
another set of fedora/rpmfusion base and
freeworld rpms, which is not really something I
would like to see proliferate without good cause,
and in this case, I am not sure it is useful to
exclude some/many/most of the grabbers
just to get a subset into Fedora if the legal
issues would preclude allowing all of the
existing grabbers.
> What do you think?
If you want to take the issue to Fedora Legal
to evaluate the compliance of each and every
grabber with Fedora compliance you are free
to do so. I have no interest in going down that
particular path, since I strongly suspect that
not all existing grabbers are "legal" in all
jurisdictions, and I really really do not want
a base/freeworld bifurcation that are due
to the legal requirements in the most litigious
country in the world.
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
