On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > Hi all, > > > As has been mentioned here prior, Richard and I are having a look at the > Licensing part of the Wiki with an eye towards any updates and improvements, > as well as moving that to the Fedora Docs (along with David C's work on the > database for the license info). > > Recently Richard posted here regarding an attempt to better define the > Fedora license categories in terms of what constitutes a "good" license. He > referenced the use of the terminology of "good" and "bad" to indicate > whether a license is approved for use in Fedora or not. > > I wanted to raise that separately b/c as we go through the documentation, > how to best explain things in the clearest way comes up. It'd be helpful to > hear people's views on this. > > Historically - "good" has meant the license is approved for use in Fedora; > "bad" has meant the license is not approved for use in Fedora; and then > there are also three nuanced categories related to fonts, documentation, and > content which mean that certain licenses are only approved for use in that > context, but not otherwise approved. > > How do people feel about the use of "good", "good-for-fonts", "bad", etc to > describe these categories? Would simply using "approved", > "approved-for-fonts", "not-approved", etc. be easier to understand? > > I'll throw in my opinion here, since I'm asking for that of others: I'm kind > of mixed on this. I always thought the good/bad indicator was kind of nice > in it's informality. However, now that I'm looking more closely at > documentation, sometimes the use of good and bad can end up reading oddly. > Practically speaking, I think use of "approved" and "not-approved" might end > up being easier to understand. Good/bad also also has a greater connotation > of judgement versus simply "approved" - which implies more closely that it > must be approved for something. So, I guess I'd lean towards simply using > "approved" and "not-approved". > > Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the Fedora licensing > documentation - what are your thoughts on this? I like the idea of moving to 'approved' vs 'not approved' in general. I think most people looking at that list will be looking in the context of packaging for Fedora and will just want to know if it's approved or not. That said, I think Neil makes a good point about people choosing licenses. Would it make sense to have 'approved' and 'not approved' and 'reccomended' ? :) Of course then recommended would be subjective, but perhaps thats ok. This would just be a smaller subset of licenses that are not only approved, but encouraged by the project. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
