On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 9:04 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <domi...@greysector.net> 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
