Apart from the packaing guidelines, aren't all lpf oriented packages against our first foundation of "Freedom" as documented here[1]?

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations

I thought spotify/skype/other-proprietary-software went to rpmfusion for this reason, not just because of the licensing restrictions they carry.

Although it might look strange, I have personally no problems with blocking the lpf-* packages from fedora. The reason it is like it is is the first reviews [1] [2] of lpf and lpf-spotify-client where I asked for legal advice from Tom. Specifically I asked:

--
The issue: can a package which is OK by itself but has the sole purpose to build a package which contains binary code (thus violating the guidelines) and is non-redistributable go into fedora?
--

My idea was really that this should go into rpmfusion, but I needed a clear answer from fedora that it's not acceptable there before submitting it (to rpmfusion). However, I got an OK from Tom. In hindsight, it might be that Tom missed some aspects of this question, here was a quite long process handling the more legal specific stuff. And I trusted the legal advice too much, didn't trust my gut feeling.

So, basically either decision is fine with me, just there is a clear one. FWIW, my own opinion is that lpf (the tooling) might as well go into fedora, but lpf-skype and lpf-spotify-client might be better off in rpmfusion.

In this perspective the offending packages are lpf-spotify-client in rawhide, f20 and f19-updates-testing. I will not push anything more until this issue is resolved. If there is a way to "back out" these packages here and now let me know (and if someone with more privileges than me does it I don't object).

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069

[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943

EDIT s/all aspects/some aspects/

Very polite and ethically correct answer. Thanks Alec. :)

Replying to [comment:2 leamas]:

So, basically either decision is fine with me, just there is a clear one. FWIW, my own opinion is that lpf (the tooling) might as well go into fedora, but lpf-skype and lpf-spotify-client might be better off in rpmfusion.

I personally think this would be the best option (I'm the reviewer of lpf-spotify-client); but would leave to others judging on this.

Looking at what lpf itself does, I agree with @leamas and @spot 's ruling (in the review request) that that package is okay. It could be used to build packages of OSS-free software as well as proprietary software.

For the specific lpf-* packages, In the past we've had a pretty lenient interpretation of guideline. For instance, I believe that OSS game "lobbies" where all the games playable from the lobby are non-free, have been allowed as well. I'm not sure if we've had a ruling that established a boundary on what is "too dependent on non-free assets" yet. I think these packages are closer to the line than the previous cases.

I think as a first step we should have spot give us his input. It could be that the packages are legal for us to distribute but he didn't specifically look at whether we'd run afoul of this Guideline. OTOH, if there are reasons that this might not be over the line, we should hear those reasons before we establish precedent with this decision.

#info lpf is okay for Fedora, lpf-* packages should move to a more appropriate repo Needs more votes: (+1:3, 0:0, -1:0)

needs 2 more +1s to pass

• Current +1s: abadger1999, geppetto, RemiFedora
• Need votes from: tibbs, limburgher, Rathann, spot, racor, SmootherFr0gZ

I see a +1 for lpf from limburgher in the irc log, some 10-15 lines after the other votes?!

@leamas, you are correct.

Current vote is:

(+1:4, 0:0, -1:0) Need one more +1 to pass

• Current +1s: abadger1999, geppetto, RemiFedora, limburgher
• Need votes from: tibbs, limburgher, Rathann, spot, racor, SmootherFr0gZ

+1 from me.

+1 from me, too

Approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0).

There's no guideline adjustment or announcement needed here. Closing ticket.