On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 2:09 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 1:58 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > How to request review of a new license > > If you find a license for a package you want to include in Fedora and that license is not listed in the Fedora License Data, you can submit it for review as follows: > > > > Note: you must be a Fedora contributer and become part of the Fedora Gitlab group. See LINK for more on how to become a Fedora contributor. > > I can sort of see why you'd want the submitter to be a Fedora > contributor (I assume that means a Fedora account holder) but is it > necessary to become part of the Fedora Gitlab group just to submit an > issue? > You're forced to sign in with FAS when you interact with the gitlab.com/fedora group. > > 1) Create a new issue in the Fedora License Data repo with the following information: license name, link to text of license, package name and link, why you want to include it in Fedora, whether it is on the SPDX License List, and the SPDX expression as applicable (see below for hints on determining if a license text matches a license on the SPDX License List) > > Is "why you want to include it in Fedora" necessary? If they are > linking to a package, presumably that's either an existing Fedora > package (i.e., the license *should* have been approved but never was, > or was approved based on outdated criteria and methodology) or a > proposed Fedora package. So the rationale for inclusion should always > be obvious and not require any further justification. > I agree, this is not necessary. Nobody would be making a request if it wasn't needed already. > > ` If the license is not on the SPDX License List, then submit the license to the to the SPDX-legal team at https://tools.spdx.org/app/submit_new_license/. In addition to the required information, include a note that it is under review for Fedora and a link to the related Fedora License Data Gitlab issue. > > Shouldn't this step depend on the license actually being approved by > Fedora first? I guess that's more of an SPDX question than a Fedora > question. Do you want people to be submitting licenses to SPDX even if > the end result might be that Fedora classifies it as "not allowed"? Of > course the license might still meet SPDX's inclusion guidelines. > It should be approved by Fedora with a provisional identifier, and that identifier should be forwarded to SPDX. We don't want to have Fedora wait on SPDX. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ 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
