Does distributing a kickstart file containing non-free repositories violate Fedora Licensing Guidelines?

I have a kickstart file that uses rpmfusion non-free repos in the %post section to install Nvidia drivers. I do not remove Fedora branding packages in the kickstart file. Would I be in violation of Fedora’s Licensing Guidelines if I were to publish this kickstart file on my blog or in a Gist on GitHub? Or do the licensing guidelines only apply to installation media like an ISO?

Also, if it is in violation, would it then be acceptable if I just removed the Fedora branding packages in the kickstart file?

1 Like

I found this and this. However, neither document mentions anything specifically about kickstart files. I’m still unsure whether they count as distributable software or media.

Regardless, it wouldn’t hurt for me to explicitly state the my kickstart file is not part of or endorsed by the Fedora Project.

The best and more secure way for you would be, if you link to the kickstart file from fedora you used and then just publish what and where you added your part.

At it looks like it just affects the %post section of a kickstart file?

I wrote the entire kickstart file from scratch using the Kickstart reference, so I’d like to publish the whole thing. Yes, the non-free software is only added in the %post section. I mean, I guess I can just remove the non-free part and add a comment indicating it was there.

1 Like

Ah ok, I just assumed you added a small part.

Hello @hyperreal ,
Perhaps you should try either an issue or PR at Overview - fedora-kickstarts - It will likely be the place the kickstart would end up I would think, if it fits with Fedora.

It’s just my personal kickstart that is specific to my setup. I don’t intend for it to be anything official.

Sure, but I think that these are examples at the repo I linked, yours could be an example too.

1 Like