PR#65: spotify: Remove content that advertise copyright license violation - fedora-docs/quick-docs

fedora-docs / quick-docs

#65 spotify: Remove content that advertise copyright license violation

Closed 5 years ago by bex. Opened 5 years ago by kwizart.

fedora-docs/ kwizart/quick-docs spotify_update into master

spotify: Remove content that advertise copyright license violation

Nicolas Chauvet • 5 years ago

d2d530b

en-US/modules/proc_installing-spotify-on-fedora.adoc

file modified

+12 -30

		`@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@`
		`While it is not officially supported on Fedora or any other RPM-based`
		`distribution, it is possible to install on Fedora using various package methods.`

		`- * Using unofficial repositories like the http://negativo17.org/spotify-client/[negativo17] or https://rpmfusion.org/[RPMFusion] repositories.`
		`+ * Using unofficial repositories https://rpmfusion.org/[RPM Fusion] repositories.`
		`* Using a Flatpak hosted by http://flathub.org[Flathub].`
		`* Using the https://www.spotify.com/us/download/linux/[officially-supported]`
		`http://snapcraft.io/[Snap].`
		`@@ -17,47 +17,29 @@`
		`[installing-spotify-from-3rd-party-repositories]`
		`=== Installing Spotify using third-party repositories`

		`- [install-spotify-using-negativo17]`
		`- ==== Using the Negativo17.org repository`
		`- The Negativo17.org repository provides a link:https://negativo17.org/spotify-client/[Spotify client] which contains the following packaged features:`
		`-`
		`- * Libraries for enabling local files playback`
		`- * File upload to personal playlists`
		`- * Firewalld rules for enabling local service discovery`
		`- * Spotify Connect (control other devices & output location)`
		`-`
		`- To install Spotify using the Negativo17.org repository:`
		`-`
		`- . Add the Negativo17.org repository:`
		`- +`
		`- ----`
		`- # dnf config-manager --add-repo=http://negativo17.org/repos/fedora-spotify.repo`
		`- ----`
		`-`
		`- . Install Spotify:`
		`- +`
		`- ----`
		`- # dnf install spotify`
		`- ----`
		`-`
		`[install-spotify-using-rpmfusion]`
		`- ==== Using the RPMFusion repository`
		`+ ==== Using the RPM Fusion repository`

		`- RPMFusion provides software that the Fedora Project do not ship. That software is provided as precompiled RPMs for all current Fedora versions.`
		`+ RPM Fusion provides software that the Fedora Project does not ship. That software is provided as a lpf RPM for all current Fedora versions.`
		`+ It means that you need to explicitely allow the spotify license before the lpf framework will download and re-package automatically the software.`
		`+ This is needed because the spotify doesnt't allow the client to be distributed elsewhere than from spotify.com.`

		`- To install Spotify using the RPMFusion repository:`
		`+ To install Spotify using the RPM Fusion repository:`

		`- . Add the RPMFusion repository`
		`+ . Add the RPM Fusion repository`
		`+`
		`----`
		`- # dnf install https://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-$(rpm -E %fedora).noarch.rpm \`
		`+ $ sudo dnf install https://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-$(rpm -E %fedora).noarch.rpm \`
		`https://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/rpmfusion-nonfree-release-$(rpm -E %fedora).noarch.rpm`
		`----`

		`. Install Spotify`
		`+`
		`----`
		`- # dnf install spotify`
		`+ $ sudo dnf install lpf-spotify-client`
		`+ $ lpf approve spotify-client`
		`+ $ sudo -u pkg-build lpf build spotify-client # It can take up to 5 minutes`
		`+ $ sudo dnf install /var/lib/lpf/rpms/spotify-client/spotify-client-*.rpm`
		`----`

kwizart commented 5 years ago

Unfortunately it's not moral (if even legal) to advertise a license
violation. Spotify does not allow the client application to be distributed
elsewhere than by spotify.com, this is a well-known issue over the web.

Here are the exact license terms:
http://www.spotify.com/se/legal/end-user-agreement/

This commit also fixes the RPM Fusion documentation using lpf framework
to workaround with particular issue.
(lpf is a fedora package that show the license, download and re-package
a given software).

Please also spell the project as appropriate:
- RPM Fusion (by default)
or
- rpmfusion (when space within name is not possible)

jflory7 commented 5 years ago

This one is more nuanced, so I'd prefer to leave it to a more experienced Docs Team member to review.

Personally, I would like to know a little more about this change. In the past, I moved away from RPM Fusion's version because of dependency issues – the Negativo repositories worked for me.

@mattdm @bex @asamalik I think there was also a legal / license header drafted during the 2018 Docs FAD? Perhaps that would be useful here?

kwizart commented 5 years ago

There is no dependency issue of the lpf-spotify-client in RPM Fusion, or you would have been expected to report issue.

(there is no issue ever reported on lpf-spotify-client os it's working perfectly
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&component=lpf-spotify-client&list_id=14632&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&resolution=---)

I would like good people from that quality, working on fedora project documentation, would not spread heard say or even false information on a fedora official website.
Thanks for your understanding.

bex commented 5 years ago

While I haven't read the license terms in detail ( @spot can you take a look?), it seems that it is better to use RPMFusion here and report bugs if the negativo packages are not in compliance with the license.

I suggest we give @spot a week to weigh in as I know he has been traveling and is probably buried in email. @mattdm is in the same boat.

spot commented 5 years ago

The spotify EULA (which is also the license for their client) says:

"You promise and agree that you are using the Content for your own personal, non-commercial, entertainment use and that you will not redistribute or transfer the Spotify Service or the Content."

I am unaware of negativo having negotiated separate permission to distribute spotify (as I believe Canonical may have done for their "software store").

It would be extremely poor form for Fedora to point to a third-party who is distributing copyrighted software in violation of its license terms. I would recommend we apply this change.

bex commented 5 years ago

I've merged this manually into the antora branch. It will go live with that branch publishing.

Thank you!