On 1/13/22 8:16 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:24 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gotcha. Here's where I think we've ended up in terms of proposing some
revised text for the package guidelines, let me know if you agree and
would be good to get some package maintainers input as well!
***
Dual Licensing Scenarios
If your package is licensed under a choice of two (or three, etc.)
licenses and both
licenses are "good" for Fedora, the License: field must reflect this by
using "OR" as
a separator. Note that this only applies when the contents of the
package are actually
under a dual license, and not when the package contains items under
multiple, distinct, and independent licenses.
Example: Package libfoo is dual licensed as Mozilla Public License v1.1
and GNU General Public License v2 or later. The package spec must have:
License: MPL-1.1 OR GPL-2.0-or-later
If your package is licensed under a known choice of two licenses and one
is a "good"
license and one is a "bad" license, then the License: field must reflect
the "good" license only.
You are encouraged to include a comment memorializing the upstream
licensing choice.
***
I took out the example altogether. At this point, I'm thinking it's not
really necessary?
I think this looks OK, without the good|bad example. But agreed that
it would be good to get feedback from people actually involved in
Fedora packaging. For example, I wonder if this
statement is hard to understand for people not sufficiently steeped in
FOSS licensing:
"Note that this only applies when the contents of the
package are actually
under a dual license, and not when the package contains items under
multiple, distinct, and independent licenses."
That sentence has been there all along and the next section is "Multiple
Licensing Scenarios"
see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_dual_licensing_scenarios
I thought about adding a parenthetical of "see further info below" but
since it's the very next section, that seemed maybe too obvious.
In many cases (I'm guessing more typically) a notated dual license
will be part of a larger expression (i.e. the dual license will cover
only a part of the code that makes up the package). I don't know if
it's important to say anything about that. I'd ultimately like to see
(maybe in some other document) some real world examples (involving
real Fedora packages!) to illustrate the kinds of general guidelines
being given here.
There is also the section on "Combined Dual and Multiple Licensing
Scenario" and some examples.
(realizing that I now know all these sections maybe a bit too well,
which may be the result of trying to edit stuff in the Pagure GUI text
editor - not that I'm inviting a tangent discussion on that topic! But
it does require a certain amount of "attention")
;)
Jilayne
_______________________________________________
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
