Re: Guidelines for dealing with licensing issues in distributed packages

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

 



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




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

  Powered by Linux