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