[Fedora-packaging] I wish to package some CC licensed content ...

Patrice Dumas pertusus at free.fr
Fri Feb 20 21:57:23 UTC 2009

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 08:21:23AM -0600, steve at lonetwin.net wrote:
> a. Naming pacakges is going to be tough, because books have long titles, 
> such as cory doctorow's, do acronyms make sense ?

This is not an easy issue, because, contrary to software there is no 
convenient name that upstream choosed. So the packager is left 
with too much choice and contradictory objectives.

* short names are better
* content needs to be disambiguated from software and other content with 
  different medium and same title
* the name should allow to find which content it is as best as possible

Other issues arise, what about different languages, different formats?

> b. Version numbers do not make sense for content that is not versioned

If the author has a versionning scheme that looks ascii ascending lets
use it. Otherwise I think that the following would work

Version: 0
Release: 0.X.YYYYMMDD

with YYYY year, MM month and DD day (I'd do the same for a software 
without version, and it is indeed what I used for uread) for the document
date of publishing, or of access if publishing date is not known.

> c. How does one treat remixes (ie: content that has been modified and  
> re-released by someone else). This is going to be different than  
> software, because, the ^upstream^ are more likely to *prefer* the forks 
> (so to say) to live side-by-side with the originals than discourage it.

Not an issue here, and it is the same than with forks that are both
interesting (like xemacs and emacs).

> d. Is it acceptable to distribute content like this:  
> http://ghosts.nin.com/main/order_options
> where although the content is licensed under a share-alike license[1],  
> the actual way to get the content is to provide an email where a  
> 'one-time download' link would be sent. So, that implies, we get around 
> the spirit under which the content is being shared (assuming the sole 
> intention of this policy was to track downloads).

Not an issue. At least ncarg (or ncl) was like this and is in fedora.
I think that the NonCommercial clause makes it not suitable for a 
fedora content repo, however. (not modifiable would be fine, in my 
opinion, but not noin commercial).

> My Todo list was mentioned under the assumption that this is not  
> something Fedora would see as a good fit 'within' the distribution  
> itself.
> I'd be very pleased if my assumption is wrong.

I think that there are books that fit in fedora and not in a separate
repo. For example, the 'maximum rpm book', but also books that 
explains how to configure servers, or the svn book
Also videos closely realted with fedora should in my opinion
be directly in fedora, like videos explaining how to use a given 

Books about programming are less obvious candidates to be directly 
in fedora, but still good candidates in my opinion.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list