On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 6:59 AM Albert Astals Cid <aa...@kde.org> wrote: > > El divendres, 30 de maig del 2025, a les 12:51:08 (Hora d’estiu d’Europa > central), Neal Gompa va escriure: > > On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 5:54 AM Albert Astals Cid <aa...@kde.org> wrote: > > > We are trying to move most of the oss-fuzz related files to our reops > > > instead of being in https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/ > > > > > > This will allow us to not have to depend on other people to merge changes > > > in them which sometimes creates a bit of friction. > > > > > > The problem is that those files are licenses under Apache 2 which is not > > > mentioned in https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy > > > > > > I would like to propose that we add a point 18 to the policy that says > > > > > > 18. Files involved in the oss-fuzz tooling can be licensed under the > > > Apache > > > License 2.0 > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > Please see > > > https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/karchive/-/merge_requests/125/diffs > > > for one of the various places we would use it. > > > > Why not maintain our own oss-fuzz repo where all this is contained? > > The karchive MR seems to pollute the project with weird binary files > > and such. I'd rather those not be in the repo. > > That's orthogonal to the "Accepting Apache 2" discussion, please let's focus > on that. >
Honestly, it isn't. Because accepting that stuff at all is kind of the reason for this. I am fine with accepting Apache-2.0 content in a repo that's *all* Apache-2.0 stuff. >From both the technical (this is goopy garbage) and licensing (Apache-2.0 with no exception sucks) perspective, I would only be okay with it as its own repository. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
