On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 6:18 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What's the best way to raise licensing issues in already-added packages? > I think there are largely two cases: > > * Fedora and its distributors comply with the licensing terms, but the > license is not obviously on Fedora's allowed list. An example would > be an obscure field-of-use restriction (as in the JSON license). > This requires a BZ set to block FE-Legal *and* an issue filed at https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/. When doing so, please link the BZ and the GitLab issue together. > * Fedora and its distributors appear violating the license. An example > would be a package that ships a pre-built Linux kernel binary without > the required GPL notices, and without corresponding soruce code. > The correct way to handle this is file a bug on RHBZ and block FE-Legal. > Do these two cases need to be treated differently? In the past, I may > have filed bugs in Bugzilla, but this might be construed as a bit rude. > The two cases are handled differently, as I outlined above. > I looked at <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/> and couldn't > find any discussion of this topic. Sorry if I missed it. > No worries! -- 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
