On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 03:52:36PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > This is a great discussion! > > On 3/4/22 7:27 AM, David Cantrell wrote: > > 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 do not have any strong feelings one way or another foor good/bad > > vs. approved/not-approved. I have always read "good" and "bad" in the > > context > > of licenses to combine approval with the project's opinion on the > > license. As > > Richard indicated, that may not be something the project really wants to > > do. > > Like, we will tolerate a particular license but we do not think it is a > > good > > license. > > > > Approved/not-approved reduces that language to the project decision, but > > reads > > as heavy handed or utilitarian. Or at least reads as less fun language. > > > > I am ok with a language change in this context. I would like the license > > database should carry approval information distinct from our opinion or > > view > > on a particular license. The latter data may be more appropriate for > > overall > > Fedora legal documentation for future reference and including long > > writeups > > about how or why we arrived at a particular opinion (story time!). > > > > Looking at thesaurus.com, my favorite synonyms for approved are: > > > > accepted > > allowed > > permitted > The point about not-approved being thought of in a different way was a > really good one. > > Given those comments and David's synonyms, could we land on: > > Allowed > Allowed-fonts > Allowed-content > Allowed-documentation > Not-allowed > > ? > > Of course, the documentation explaining in more detail the criteria for > these is what really matters. In any case, I think it is a good goal to use > terminology that is easy to grasp on its face, particularly for non-native > English speakers, is a good goal. > > It seems to me that "allowed" and "permitted" are the most logical, but then > I'm a native English speaker, so my opinion is not as key here! > > I think I like "allowed" because it makes sense in a sentence: "This license > is (not)allowed for use in Fedora." I don't think that suffers the same > potential lack of clarity as "this license is not approved for use in > Fedora" being taken to mean it has not yet been reviewed/approved. > > thoughts? I like these. And the example sentence. I think allowed is simpler than permitted. Thanks, > > > licensed[1] > > > > [1] This one added as a joke because I thought it was funny that it > > showed up > > as a synonym for approved and we're talking about licenses. Yeah, let's > > say > > "licensed" to mean an approved license in Fedora. That should not > > confuse > > anyone. :) > > oh goodness! > > Jilayne > > > > > Thanks, > > -- David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT _______________________________________________ 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
