Hi all,
find below the list of topics that are planed to come up in the next EPEL SIG meeting which is scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday at 18:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.org (24 hours from now).
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | next testing -> stable move | knurd | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/NextTestingStableMove
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | EL-updates to the buildsys | mmcgrath | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | KojiAndBodhiForEpel | mmcgrath | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/KojiAndBodhiForEpel
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | broken dep reports go to the list | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | Free discussion around EPEL
You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to this mail (please adjust the subject) and we'll add it to the schedule. You can also propose topics at the end of the meeting itself when "Free discussion around EPEL" comes up.
*If your name/nick is on above list*: please give a status update on the list *and* in the wiki on the individual task pages (linked from the schedule page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Schedule ). That way all the interested parties know what up ahead of the meeting; that will avoid long delays and "status update monologues" in the meeting.
Thanks everyone!
CU knurd
On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | next testing -> stable move | knurd | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/NextTestingStableMove
Working on the next move for EPEL4 right now.
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | EL-updates to the buildsys | mmcgrath | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
from https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/327
"rhel4 i386 and x86_64 are synced down and will resync every day. ppc is going to be, umm, suffering until I figure out how to make the systemid work. I'll play some more and see what I can do."
mmcgrath, current status?
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | KojiAndBodhiForEpel | mmcgrath | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/KojiAndBodhiForEpel
Some movements in https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/koji/ticket/49
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | broken dep reports go to the list | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
Some work from mschwendt; who is in charge for the current dep checker script? Does it sill work? Should we switch to the one from mschwendt (the old one from Extras)?
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | Free discussion around EPEL
* Anybody willing to file bugs for the remaining broken deps (the report got send to the lis a few days ago)?
* FUDCon report anyone? Or wasn't EPEL discussed there?
Cu knurd
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | next testing -> stable move | knurd | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/NextTestingStableMove
Working on the next move for EPEL4 right now.
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | EL-updates to the buildsys | mmcgrath | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
from https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/327
"rhel4 i386 and x86_64 are synced down and will resync every day. ppc is going to be, umm, suffering until I figure out how to make the systemid work. I'll play some more and see what I can do."
mmcgrath, current status?
I believe its been worked out
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | KojiAndBodhiForEpel | mmcgrath | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/KojiAndBodhiForEpel
Some movements in https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/koji/ticket/49
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects
Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA. if you want to be more explicit then you are free to put a license header in each of your specs. Documenting the wiki would be ok and point at a copy of the CLA should more than suffice.
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | broken dep reports go to the list | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
Some work from mschwendt; who is in charge for the current dep checker script? Does it sill work? Should we switch to the one from mschwendt (the old one from Extras)?
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | Free discussion around EPEL
- Anybody willing to file bugs for the remaining broken deps (the
report got send to the lis a few days ago)?
- FUDCon report anyone? Or wasn't EPEL discussed there?
Cu knurd
epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA.
Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives software from Fedora?
I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B has no meaning to C.
if you want to be more explicit then you are free to put a license header in each of your specs.
My packages are not relevant here. It's about cooperation as a whole. If foo(¹) wants to use a spec file from Fedora as base for a package in his repo then he needs to be sure that it is a legal thing to do.
Cu knurd
(¹) foo could be Dag, Livna, RPM Fusion or my neighbor
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA.
Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives software from Fedora?
I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B has no meaning to C.
CLA is not just a contract between A and B or more specifically it allows the same rights to all recipients which in this case would include C. I believe spot already explained that in
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00031....
Rahul
On 15.01.2008 20:01, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA.
Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives software from Fedora? I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B has no meaning to C.
CLA is not just a contract between A and B or more specifically it allows the same rights to all recipients which in this case would include C. I believe spot already explained that in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00031....
Which I replied to in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00032.... with the words:
[...] I can't know if the all work I get from Fedora was submitted by someone that signed the CLA. [...]
Cu knurd
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 20:01, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA.
Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives software from Fedora? I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B has no meaning to C.
CLA is not just a contract between A and B or more specifically it allows the same rights to all recipients which in this case would include C. I believe spot already explained that in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00031....
Which I replied to in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00032.... with the words:
[...] I can't know if the all work I get from Fedora was submitted by someone that signed the CLA. [...]
All the work definitely isn't but spec files would be. That is the only thing you are worried about. Right?
Rahul
On 15.01.2008 20:21, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 20:01, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > /topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects > | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA.
Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives software from Fedora? I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B has no meaning to C.
CLA is not just a contract between A and B or more specifically it allows the same rights to all recipients which in this case would include C. I believe spot already explained that in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00031....
Which I replied to in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00032.... with the words: [...] I can't know if the all work I get from Fedora was submitted by someone that signed the CLA. [...]
All the work definitely isn't but spec files would be.
Then I'm sure it can be written down to finally solve the iossue?
That is the only thing you are worried about. Right?
I think that's what people were worried about when the issue came up on this list.
CU knurd
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 20:21, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 20:01, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> /topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects >> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc > Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what > we/I'm up to or they ignore it. No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA.
Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives software from Fedora? I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B has no meaning to C.
CLA is not just a contract between A and B or more specifically it allows the same rights to all recipients which in this case would include C. I believe spot already explained that in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00031....
Which I replied to in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00032.... with the words: [...] I can't know if the all work I get from Fedora was submitted by someone that signed the CLA. [...]
All the work definitely isn't but spec files would be.
Then I'm sure it can be written down to finally solve the iossue?
It is written down within the CLA that the contributions that every Fedora contributor makes falls under the CLA and that includes spec files.
We consulted with legal before on whether we can explain the CLA better in another document and the legal opinion was that if any clarifications are necessary, it should done within the CLA itself and not in a separate document as any contradictions are considered risky IIRC. However I think you can point this out in the EPEL FAQ for example in this way:
---
How are RPM spec files in Fedora licensed?
All original Fedora contributions are governed by the Fedora contributor license agreement (CLA) [Link]. This allows all recipients to have
"A perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute this Contribution and such derivative works"
More information is available in the CLA.
---
Rahul
On 15.01.2008 21:00, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 20:21, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 20:01, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>> /topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects >>> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc >> Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what >> we/I'm up to or they ignore it. > No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA. Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives software from Fedora? I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B has no meaning to C.
CLA is not just a contract between A and B or more specifically it allows the same rights to all recipients which in this case would include C. I believe spot already explained that in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00031....
Which I replied to in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00032.... with the words: [...] I can't know if the all work I get from Fedora was submitted by someone that signed the CLA. [...]
All the work definitely isn't but spec files would be.
Then I'm sure it can be written down to finally solve the iossue?
It is written down within the CLA
Which CLA? The one I signed in the early Fedora days is not the one that is available today. There are afaik even today different CLAs for Red Hat, IBM, Dell and community contributers -- I don't know what's written in them. And I don't known which of those is binding if I take something from Fedora.
We consulted with legal before on whether we can explain the CLA better in another document and the legal opinion was that if any clarifications are necessary, it should done within the CLA itself and not in a separate document as any contradictions are considered risky IIRC. However I think you can point this out in the EPEL FAQ for example in this way:
I'm not going to put any legal statement anywhere. That is exactly what we have the Board for and that's why I asked the Board to handle that.
Cu knurd
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Which CLA? The one I signed in the early Fedora days is not the one that is available today. There are afaik even today different CLAs for Red Hat, IBM, Dell and community contributers -- I don't know what's written in them. And I don't known which of those is binding if I take something from Fedora.
These don't differ as far as spec files are concerned IIUC. If you need further clarification on that, you need to ask that explicitly to the board.
We consulted with legal before on whether we can explain the CLA better in another document and the legal opinion was that if any clarifications are necessary, it should done within the CLA itself and not in a separate document as any contradictions are considered risky IIRC. However I think you can point this out in the EPEL FAQ for example in this way:
I'm not going to put any legal statement anywhere. That is exactly what we have the Board for and that's why I asked the Board to handle that.
It is not a separate legal statement. It is a direct quote from the CLA and the board has explicitly said that documenting this in the wiki is ok for them.
Rahul
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 22:01 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I'm not going to put any legal statement anywhere. That is exactly what we have the Board for and that's why I asked the Board to handle that.
Here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#LicenseOfFedoraSPECFiles
This should put this to bed. Happy? :)
~spot
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 22:01 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I'm not going to put any legal statement anywhere. That is exactly what we have the Board for and that's why I asked the Board to handle that.
Here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#LicenseOfFedoraSPECFiles
This should put this to bed. Happy? :)
Thanks spot. Minor correction. You need to replace [Link] with the actual link to CLA.
Rahul
On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 06:10 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 22:01 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I'm not going to put any legal statement anywhere. That is exactly what we have the Board for and that's why I asked the Board to handle that.
Here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#LicenseOfFedoraSPECFiles
This should put this to bed. Happy? :)
Thanks spot. Minor correction. You need to replace [Link] with the actual link to CLA.
Thanks, corrected.
~spot
On 16.01.2008 01:24, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 22:01 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I'm not going to put any legal statement anywhere. That is exactly what we have the Board for and that's why I asked the Board to handle that.
Here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#LicenseOfFedoraSPECFiles This should put this to bed. Happy? :)
Yes. Thx.
CU knurd
On Tue January 15 2008, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects
Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA. if you want to be more explicit then you are free to put a license header in each of your specs. Documenting the wiki would be ok and point at a copy of the CLA should more than suffice.
Maybe there should be an EULA like there is for Fedora 8: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA8
Regards, Till
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org