On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 01:08:38PM -0600, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > On 6/8/22 12:08 PM, Richard Fontana 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? > Not up to us, as far as I understand it, so was adding that as an > expectation. Looks like Neal may have answered this in next email as well. > > > > > 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 or was approved based on outdated criteria and methodology) or a 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. > okay, fair enough. I wasn't sure if that was something that was included in > the past. I'll remove that part! I think it's useful to specify a link to the package review or such. (Why? For example the following scenario: a package review request is created, then it becomes blocked on the license review, and for whatever reason it takes a long time. Once the license ticket is closed, people would like to jump back to the package review…) In general, more links is better, it's hard to coordinate things between the different trackers that Fedora uses. So maybe make the "why you want to include it in Fedora" part optional: "Reason for the license review? (Optional. E.g. link to package review ticket.)" > > > ` 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. > That is how I had it at first, but I am thinking that giving SPDX a heads up > sooner than later would be advantageous. That way the SPDX id can be sort > of prepped and then if the license ends up being not-allowed, well, closing > an issue on the SPDX side as "not accepted" (to the SPDX License List) is > relatively easy. :) Zbyszek _______________________________________________ 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
