Bug 2130953

Summary:	Review Request: wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status:	CLOSED DEFERRED	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	decathorpe, ifont, package-review, ppisar
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:	NotReady
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2022-10-04 19:40:49 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	182235

Description Lokesh Mandvekar 2022-09-29 14:26:51 UTC

Spec URL: <spec info here>
SRPM URL: <srpm info here>
Description: <description here>
Fedora Account System Username:

Comment 1 Fabio Valentini 2022-09-29 14:42:57 UTC

Note that there was a previous attempt to package wasmtime:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051240

It was ultimately abandoned because of unclear licensing status of one of its components:
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/3912

And finally Legal did not approve the content in question - after months of waiting and poking, all I got was this response:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051229#c7

Maybe you'll have better luck getting responses from Legal, given that you're working for Red Hat ...

Comment 2 Lokesh Mandvekar 2022-09-29 14:56:42 UTC

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1)
> Note that there was a previous attempt to package wasmtime:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051240
> 
> It was ultimately abandoned because of unclear licensing status of one of
> its components:
> https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/3912
> 
> And finally Legal did not approve the content in question - after months of
> waiting and poking, all I got was this response:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051229#c7
> 
> Maybe you'll have better luck getting responses from Legal, given that
> you're working for Red Hat ...

Thank you for the pointers Fabio. We'll see if things have changed at all since then.

Comment 3 Petr Pisar 2022-09-29 15:59:26 UTC

Instead assigning to jnovy, you should block this review by FE-Legal <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/#special_blocker_tickets>.

Comment 4 Lokesh Mandvekar 2022-09-29 18:24:07 UTC

No spec or srpm or anything right now. But setting FE-Legal regardless as Comment 3 suggested. 

We'll likely have to check with upstream and possibly the crate dependencies about relicensing from CC0, or perhaps check if a functional package can be built without any of the problem licenses.

Comment 5 Fabio Valentini 2022-09-29 18:33:46 UTC

Ah, I probably wasn't clear: The problem wasn't Code that was CC0 licensed, but rather code / interface definitions that aren't available under an open-source license *at all*.

Comment 6 Lokesh Mandvekar 2022-09-29 18:42:37 UTC

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #5)
> Ah, I probably wasn't clear: The problem wasn't Code that was CC0 licensed,
> but rather code / interface definitions that aren't available under an
> open-source license *at all*.

ah ack, gotcha. Thanks

Comment 7 Lokesh Mandvekar 2022-10-04 19:40:49 UTC

Setting this to CLOSED DEFERRED as it's not a high-enough priority for the containers team or RH atm, in addition to the other issues as Fabio pointed out, so I'd rather not spend time on this. If anyone wants to take this forward, please go right ahead.

Thanks for the comments and feedback everyone.