On 12/11/2022 03:12, Richard Fontana wrote:
Related but different. This is a different proxy, controlled by the
KDE Free Qt Foundation, not KDE e.V. That issue would seem to suggest
that if we want to represent this at all (and if we want to do this
for the various KDE packages in Fedora) it should be through a
LicenseRef-. The question is, should we? Outside of KDE, Qt and (IIRC)
git, I am not sure I've ever seen a use of such a 'proxy' mechanism,
so if it's that uncommon maybe it's not worth bothering to represent.
Then again, there are a lot of KDE-related packages in Fedora.
Maybe if Arthur needs a relatively quick answer it should be to just
use 'GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only'? (I think there's a deeper question
here, which is why we should care so much about representing
'or-later' at this stage of FOSS legal history... To me, the
justification for doing it in Fedora license metadata is primarily
tradition.)
(I replied on this particular issue in the different thread, sorry)
I would like to fix the license: field with the next update of
moolticute, but it can wait. There is no time pressure from my side.
# src/utils/qurltlds_p.h which is MPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0-or-later OR
LGPL-2.1-or-later,
Given the nature of this file, I'd just omit this.
why do you say this?
This header file basically just contains a list of domain name
suffixes. In a number of cases I can remember over the years Fedora
has treated nominal nonfree licenses on analogous kinds of data as not
being an obstacle to Fedora packaging. Unlike those other cases, here
we don't have to address the issue of whether there is anything
actually licensable in this file; the file appears to be
self-compliant at least with MPL 2.0 and the licenses indicated here
are all Fedora-allowed. But it seems like an appropriate opportunity
to slightly simplify the License: field which I'm mindful that Arthur
is probably already finding very complex (given that it was previously
just "GPLv3").
Richard
That would be appreciated! However, there is the problem that due to my
limited knowledge about licensing, I cannot defend this choice if
questions are raised in the future. With that in mind, it might be
better to include it anyway?
Arthur
_______________________________________________
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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
