We are, widely.

as in more packages in there

Its the main source of media players, nvidia drivers (nonfree) and co.

yes, the more popular packages

as in more packages in there

It holds 517 well maintained and reviewed packages in.

Which one did you miss?

i miss a lot of my software in there actually, phpstorm, discord, spotify, etc.

mostly nonfree

i miss a lot of my software in there actually, phpstorm, discord, spotify, etc.

Those will never be in that tough.

Those will never be in that tough.

why not?

Because they are privacy problematic, change installation and behaviour every release and have some legal problems when you try to repackage them for systemwide installation.

Especially spotify, less so phpstorm but that one really loves to be userinstalled too.

And to be honest, i wouldn't want any of those in rpmfusion.

So rpmfusion is not as open

So rpmfusion is not as open

"Not wanting legal trouble with a music company that has backing by almost all of the industry" is not as open, yes.

And to me "not running the risk of a dcma takedown from lawyers making new installations using it impossible tomorrow" is good too.

"Not wanting legal trouble with a music company that has backing by almost all of the industry" is not as open, yes.

Right, that's my point with not being able to just put any package you'd want in there, so it's not the same as the AUR

Right, that's my point with not being able to just put any package you'd want in there, so it's not the same as the AUR

I fail to see the point.

You want to put yourself up for suing?

Fine by me, honestly.

But dont take down your whole infrastructure with it if it happens.

Arch is harder to sue away because its a hobbyist project - Fedora has RHEL behind it. And lawyers are just waiting to milk both dry.

AUR has been moving along just fine with Spotify and phpStorm

They could've long vouched to get those packages out of there

AUR has been moving along just fine with Spotify and phpStorm

Again, because its harder to sue away and because its legal in large parts of the world to have uncurated userbased content uploaders.

If you want to curate it tough you are in hells kitchen

Because then you are a publisher and responsible for the output by law

You want to put yourself up for suing?

Hmm? The build scripts are just text files containing the URL. I doubt you can get sued for that.

Hmm? The build scripts are just text files containing the URL. I doubt you can get sued for that.

Right

Hmm? The build scripts are just text files containing the URL. I doubt you can get sued for that.

You can if you control it just like youtube would need a broadcast license if it did.

Right

Wrong

The only thing you're publishing is a set of build instructions

The only thing you're publishing is a set of build instructions

Thats enough to get burned.

how? you're not even including the actual thing in your package

The second you employ any kind of control and anything you then let trough that can do harm or is breaking any kind of law, you are up for it.

guess i'll stop breathing by that logic, then

guess i'll stop breathing by that logic, then

You are not being rational nor is that an appropriate thing to put on this situation.

You are not being rational nor is that an appropriate thing to put on this situation.

no, I'm just saying that if you have anything in control it can be sued by that logic

Again. User uploaded with no control but when someone notifies you: a-ok. You read trough if a script does hack.melol | sh and sign it off hello lawyers

no, I'm just saying that if you have anything in control it can be sued by that logic

Exactly.

thats why the aur is going free because it has 0 control but user reports.

Exactly.

therefore *anything* I do can be sued

by that logic

and thats also its biggest problem

therefore *anything* I do can be sued

No.

Again. User uploaded with no control but when someone notifies you: a-ok. You read trough if a script does hack.melol | sh and sign it off hello lawyers

isn't the user in control of creating the original file and uploading it to the site, then?

different question, how does signing it off put you in control

isn't the user in control of creating the original file and uploading it to the site, then?

They are, but how realistic is the chance of finding one in a million users?

different question, how does signing it off put you in control

It puts you on the cutting block of laws that then make you the publisher.

It puts you on the cutting block of laws that then make you the publisher.

how?

if all you're saying is 'it's ok, put it in there'

how?

Because someone wrote it into law, no matter how stupid it is.

if all you're saying is 'it's ok, put it in there'

Yes.

Because someone wrote it into law, no matter how stupid it is.

I guess

how does something like Chocolatey operate anyway though? They ship tons and tons of proprietary software like Spotify

and sign them off as well

Going by the youtube example - youtube would need a broadcast license, an agency controlled by the government for screening and review and operate all the things and pay large sums of money if one human reviewed a single video when it was uploaded and before it was marked as a-ok for the public

If its an algorithm doing it there is no problem.

how does something like Chocolatey operate anyway though? They ship tons and tons of proprietary software like Spotify

Because nobody bothered to sue them.

Because nobody bothered to sue them.

seems shady to continue operating when you know there are a million reasons to get sued

Plus you get your software to people that enjoy having it as service with no fuss. Why would you cut that and destroy trust in you as software maker?

Plus you get your software to people that enjoy having it as service with no fuss. Why would you cut that and destroy trust in you as software maker?

why wouldn't this apply to rpmfusion?

seems shady to continue operating when you know there are a million reasons to get sued

They make money off it in the business plan so it definitely is.

Plus you get your software to people that enjoy having it as service with no fuss. Why would you cut that and destroy trust in you as software maker?

Yeah, exactly.

why wouldn't this apply to rpmfusion?

Because rpmfusion mostly uses software that is open source and has 0 restrictions on it.

ERROR: S client not available

Because rpmfusion mostly uses software that is open source and has 0 restrictions on it.

yet they also ship stuff like the nvidia driver

And a legal team that checks any NDA's, problems and co that can arise.

yet they also ship stuff like the nvidia driver

Because nvidia does allow so.

well, story barely makes any sense imo but i have to go

guess we got the law to blame

i miss a lot of my software in there actually, phpstorm, discord, spotify, etc.

PHPStorm is a proprietary IDE. Its license disallow you to publish it anywhere, so it will be never shipped with RPMFusion. Discord will be available in RPMFusion non-free soon (waiting for package review). Spotify can be installed from negativo17.

negativo17?

PHPStorm is a proprietary IDE. Its license disallow you to publish it anywhere, so it will be never shipped with RPMFusion. Discord will be available in RPMFusion non-free soon (waiting for package review). Spotify can be installed from negativo17.

but how does negativo17 not get sued? etc. etc. etc.

anyway i'm out

but how does negativo17 not get sued? etc. etc. etc.

Too small a fish and he doesnt demand money.

And again, the company has little interest to do so unless he packs in a crack or hacking/tracking scripts.

but how does negativo17 not get sued? etc. etc. etc.

Ask him, not me.

So, if rpmfusion publishes a new package, called kinda spotify-installer-1.0.fc26.noarch.rpm, which contains single script used just for downloading original file and building the rpm package, they might be sued?

Am i right?

So, if rpmfusion publishes a new package, called kinda spotify-installer-1.0.fc26.noarch.rpm, which contains single script used just for downloading original file and building the rpm package, they might be sued?

Package must contains all required files, not only downloader.

Package must contains all required files, not only downloader.

When I think about the torbrowser, it's a bit different

Package must contains all required files, not only downloader.

I mean it to contain a script for downloading the package from official website, to unpack it and build the native rpm

Something similar can be found in packman repo for opensuse

But when it comes to spotify: https://community.spotify.com/t5/forums/v3_1/forumtopicpage/board-id/001/thread-id/8303/page/1

I mean it to contain a script for downloading the package from official website, to unpack it and build the native rpm

No way.

Noone will accept such package to repositories.

Am i right?

Yes but that will never happen because rpms are made to be ready for atomic upgrades and contain all files to just unpack them. running scripts that load live sources is dangerous and unwanted.

Noone will accept such package to repositories.

And what about torbrowser-installer package?

And what about torbrowser-installer package?

you mean torbrowser-launcher?

And what about torbrowser-installer package?

This is just a simple application. It don't build any packages on end-user's system.

you mean torbrowser-launcher?

Yup

in this case the torbrowser is downloaded and installed in usercontext

That is a different story - it installs a fully selfcontained launcher application.

what you do once you launch that application is your problem.

https://github.com/micahflee/torbrowser-launcher

And yes thats also only possible because its open sauce and spotify would still not be legally installable that way