On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 9:49 AM Arthur Bols <arthur@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/11/2022 03:12, Richard Fontana wrote: > >>>> # 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? I don't know if it's better but it seems okay to include it. Richard _______________________________________________ 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
