Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Re: Re: other licensing guidance

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



V Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 12:01:34AM -0400, Richard Fontana napsal(a):
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 3:37 AM Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I'm slightly surprised that you decided to hide the unapproved license part
> > "Artistic-1.0-Perl" from "GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl" expression.
> >
> > I understand it makes the License tag more comprehensible.
> >
> > On the other hand, I worry it will complicate merging user-supplied patches
> > back to upstreams. Because users contributing to Fedora will see only GPL,
> > hence they will understand their patches are GPL. But then upstream will assume
> > or insisit on the full "GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl" combination.
> > The will make a friction because Fedora maintainers will need to renegotiate
> > a license of the patch with the patch author to get the "OR Artistic-1.0-Perl"
> > part back. (Though I admin this case quite theoritical. I haven't seen many
> > patches from Fedora users. Fedora-origin patches are usually authored by
> > Fedora maintainers.)
> >
> > Does hiding the unapproved licenses from a License tag also influnce which
> > license files are packaged with %license macro? Should we because of that
> > start removing Artistic-1.0-Perl texts from Perl packages?
> 
> OK, after some deliberation, we've decided to give an exception to
> packages containing Perl code that use the Perl 5 GPL|Artistic dual
> license. These packages can continue to represent the dual license in
> the License: field.
> 
> It is possible that a similar exception might be granted in the future
> in some comparable case involving some other dual license and some
> other community, but I have a feeling there isn't any.
> 
> > > Note that we have an open issue to reassess the various pre-Artistic
> > > 2.0 versions of the Artistic License.
> > >
> > I can see <https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/37>.
> > I wasn't aware about it. Allowing Artistic-1.0-Perl would palliate the above
> > mentioned worry.
> 
> As for this, though, and again after much deliberation, we've decided
> to keep the status of Artistic-1.0-Perl as not-allowed.
> 
Thanks for the guidance.

-- Petr

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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux