Am Donnerstag, 28. Oktober 2021, 11:20:15 CEST schrieb Dead Mozay:

В Чт, 28/10/2021 в 11:09 +0200, Stephan Kulow пишет:

...

On 10/28/21 10:55, Dead Mozay wrote:

...

Is it possible to leave pycharm-ce on OBS after all or not? Who thinks about this?

For background: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/926501 .. 09

I guess you discuss this directly with Christophe

I tried, he says that pycharm-ce does not open source, I showed the license where it says the opposite, then he told me that pycharm cannot be built from source code, I built it locally, then he stopped writing messages.

https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/blob/master/LICENSE.txt says its Apache 2.0 Unless otherwise stated, the subpackages heritage the license (AFAIK). I know the SUSE license team is overloaded, but maybe they can give advice? Cheers Axel

On Donnerstag, 28. Oktober 2021 11:31:13 CEST Axel Braun wrote:

Am Donnerstag, 28. Oktober 2021, 11:20:15 CEST schrieb Dead Mozay:

...

В Чт, 28/10/2021 в 11:09 +0200, Stephan Kulow пишет:

...

On 10/28/21 10:55, Dead Mozay wrote:

...

Is it possible to leave pycharm-ce on OBS after all or not? Who thinks about this?

For background: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/926501 .. 09

I guess you discuss this directly with Christophe

I tried, he says that pycharm-ce does not open source, I showed the license where it says the opposite, then he told me that pycharm cannot be built from source code, I built it locally, then he stopped writing messages.

https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines

No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries

You *have* to rebuild everything from scratch, otherwise its almost impossible to prove the built artifacts are actually matching the provided sources, and no proprietary part has sneaked in. (There is at least one static library, libdbusmenu-glib.a, where no sources are provided.)

https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/blob/master/LICENSE.txt says its Apache 2.0

Unless otherwise stated, the subpackages heritage the license (AFAIK).

The existence of the "license" directory is a strong hint other licenses are involved. Have a look at e.g. the oromatcher license, which is a strong copyleft license. A binary including it is no longer governed by Apache-2.0 alone.

I know the SUSE license team is overloaded, but maybe they can give advice?

We probably could ease the burden by acting catiously in the first place. The OBS is full of packages not adhering to the rules (s.a.). Have you ever searched for "libx264" on the OBS? Go for it, and then file a delete request for each one ... Regards, Stefan -- Stefan Brüns / Bergstraße 21 / 52062 Aachen phone: +49 241 53809034 mobile: +49 151 50412019

В Чт, 28/10/2021 в 11:34 +0200, Atri Bhattacharya пишет:

Your best bet — in my opinion anyway — would be to work with upstream to see if they can support an offline build from sources.

Repackaging pre-built binaries seems kind of redundant to me: couldn't users just get the binaries from upstream then anyway and what's the difference between that and 're-packaged' versions on OBS?

It also prevents someone from actually verifying the sources and their licenses if they wanted to, which then renders it open-source in name only. openSUSE does not allow shipping pre-packaged jars from java applications for similar reasons, if I am not mistaken.

Now it becomes clear, thanks for the explanation If jars built not on obs are really not allowed, then this would explain the request for removal, but it was not mentioned in the conversation, perhaps as it was said above due to the high workload of the SUSE license team.