On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 05:18:48PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 5:08 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 3/3/22 2:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > >> > > >> 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. > > > > > That's an interesting idea - are you thinking this would be in the > > context of: "If you are creating or considering a license for a package > > that you want included in Fedora, here is a list of recommended licenses > > to use" ? (which I suppose implicitly says, use an approved/good one, > > but don't just pick any old approved/good one, please) Yeah... More like "If you are starting an open source project and plan to package it for Fedora, here's a list of what we consider the "best" licenses to use. > Historically I think Fedora had some informal standards around > Fedora-specific projects (not Fedora packages, but projects that are > in some sense part of the larger Fedora project) but I am not sure > this has ever really been documented. Most Fedora projects seem to use There have been some standards around applications/packages written for Fedora Infrastructure: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing but of course thats changed somewhat in recent years with the Fedora Council saying it was ok to use non free infrastructure if needed. > GPLv2, the MIT license, LGPLv2.1, perhaps GPLv3 to some degree. I > don't see a compelling need for Fedora to start making recommendations > for *Fedora* projects since this has seemed to work pretty well as an > informal thing. As for whether Fedora should make broader > recommendations ... I am not sure at this point Fedora doing so will > have much impact on upstream licensing choices so I don't know if it > would really be worthwhile. Yeah, probibly not much effect. > Internally at Red Hat, we have had a fairly lengthy list of > default-approved licenses for new projects for some time now. We've > thought about making this a much smaller list. I wouldn't immediately > see a need for this list to be harmonized with a hypothetical Fedora > recommended list since it serves rather different purposes, in > contrast to our goal of harmonizing Fedora "good" and "bad" license > lists more generally with internal Red Hat counterparts. Just a thought. Perhaps it's not practical / useful now (although it might have been once upon a time). 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
