On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 12:27 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 12:09 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 11/4/21 1:46 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 07:44:43AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> [see https://pagure.io/fedora-web/websites/issue/215 for the original issue] > > >> > > >> I hope that this is the right venue for this question/review request: > > >> https://getfedora.org/ currently says > > >>> Fedora is always free for anyone to use, modify, and distribute. > > >>> It is built and used by people across the globe who work together as a community. > > >> There is a pull request open to amend the text to include: > > >> > > >> <small>{% trans trimmed %}It is a compilation of software packages, > > >> each under its own license. Images that can be downloaded here are > > >> available under the combination of licenses of the constituent > > >> software packages and the license of the Fedora project itself. > > >> <a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Licenses/LicenseAgreement#License";>View License</a>{% endtrans %}</small> > > > This^ is https://pagure.io/fedora-web/websites/pull-request/218#request_diff > > looking at the PR and the website page itself - do I understand > > correctly that this is essentially adding a line to the blurb at the > > last section (before the footer banner) of this page - > > https://getfedora.org/ - next to the gray/white globe graphic? > > > > Just trying to visualize the end result. > > I think so. Seems to be associated with this issue: > https://pagure.io/fedora-web/websites/issue/215 > > I'm not sure why it's that important to say this, but I guess it's > mostly worded okay, except that "the license of the Fedora project > itself" should be reworded since there is no license of the Fedora > project itself (in my view, anyway). There is a collective work > license -- the MIT license -- but I don't see that much value in > placing any emphasis on that. But if that is going to be referred to, > it should be "the license of the Fedora distribution itself", not the > more ambiguous "the license of the Fedora project itself". Or maybe "the license of the Fedora Linux distribution itself" (if I recall correctly there's been some effort to refer to the distribution as "Fedora Linux"). Richard _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
