Hi, all, Today I see a project "Mumble RPMs" http://mumble.knobgoblin.org.uk/ It aims to provide spec file, patches, desktop files for some commercial/proprietary/free-but-not-spdx-compatible licensed applications like Humble Indie Bundle games. It seems to be a patch work. it doesn't distribute purchased things, but splits one's own modifications out, license the modifications spdx-compatible, then distribute the modifications. I'm not sure about its mechanism (license issues). Can spec file/patches/desktop files be licensed using a different license (spdx-compatible) while the main and original distributive, well, things( sometimes it's source, sometimes it's binaries), are licensed using its own license? I'm interested in it because Commercial Companies who distribute its Linux-version software always show no patience and expertise. In many cases things they provide can not properly run on our Linux box. sometimes it's no sound, sometimes it uses an obsolete library, sometimes it is wrong about RPM groups or desktop file categories (they may choose Fedora as its RPM development environment, so no compatible to SuSE). then it requires end desktop users to modify them. But desktop users always have no ability to do so. Of course we can send patch directly to developers. But it will last forever until they release SP1. I think if the answer to my question is yes, we packagers can help a lot on this by providing a nosrc RPM like Mumble RPMs does. it is easier to throw a nosrc rpm and your purchased package to /usr/src/packages/source, unrpm it, move specfile to ../specs, then run rpm -ba, than modify system files like /home/marguerite/.frozenbyte/trine/config/blabla.txt or /usr/share/applications/trine.desktop which may be overwritten by mistake, system upgrade or reinstall, stolen. because you can backup your generated non-distributive RPMs elsewhere. If the answer to my question is yes, we at first need a "non-downloadable source" option for our purchased things, a "no noarch and architecture RPMs generation" option to make sure no binaries containing non-distributive codes are generated, then a "no branch" option to make sure no one except me can branch my project. (branching means redistribution which is prohibitted by upstream). At last, by adding NoSource: 0 tag to our specfiles, OBS will publish only a nosrc rpm which could be download by end desktop users. Is it already done in unreleased/secret version OBS ( SuSE China staff told me their OBS can import outside repositories like Pacman as dependencies where I learned there's a secret super-power version OBS) or is there any workarounds existing (please don't tell me I can install OBS locally...it's not funny)? It sounds, well, a little bit off-topic, but let's brainstorm. It may inspires OBS developers new features and others new way of using OBS. Marguerite -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org