On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 3:04 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 1/2/23 10:57 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 3:19 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> * Jilayne Lovejoy: > >> > >>> On 12/19/22 3:10 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > >>>> Dne 19. 12. 22 v 12:18 Florian Weimer napsal(a): > >>>>> * 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). > >>>> Create an issue in https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/ > >>>> > >>>> And the license may be added to not-allowed list. See > >>>> https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/?sort=created_date&state=all&label_name%5B%5D=license%3A%3Anot%20allowed&first_page_size=20 > >>>> > >>>> And in that issue you can discuss what to do with the package if it > >>>> already in Fedora Linux. > >>> the process for license review is outlined at this particular link: > >>> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-review-process/ > >>> > >>> :) > >> Thanks. I'll keep filing fedora-license-data issues until told > >> otherwise. > > I think we can make that documentation a little clearer that the > > license review process can be initiated by any interested Fedora > > contributor (not just actual/intended package maintainers), for > > existing as well as proposed new Fedora packages. What we don't want > > is for it to be used for substantially non-Fedora-related purposes > > (e.g. a license for which review is sought should demonstrably exist > > in an existing Fedora package or a project that (but for any license > > issues) seems likely to be included in Fedora). > > > > Richard > > > I just had a re-read and it doesn't say anything specific to "package > maintainers" but I think uses "Fedora contributors" initially, which > should cover your point. I think it's clear it should be for a package > included in Fedora, but we don't have an explicit statement to NOT use > it for non-Fedora related purposes - do you think we should add that? > > I did fix a bit of formatting just now, though :) Also re-reading - I guess the only thing that's unclear is the initial text: "This page describes how to request the review of *a new license for inclusion in Fedora Linux* and other related processes. [...] "Request review of a new license" [...] While the following text makes things clear, I think there is something confusing about the phrase "new license" -- someone might assume that doesn't cover "licenses Fedora has arguably been distributing code/content under for 20 years", for example. Separately, but related to Florian's question, I think we should make clear in documentation (if we don't already) that fedora-license-data is not intended to deal with questions about license compliance, except to the extent that impossibility or impracticality of compliance with a license may be a reason for concluding that it is not allowed. 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
