On 1/3/23 12:39 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
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.
I've simply removed the word "new" :)
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-legal-docs/-/merge_requests/152
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.
not sure where to put that or what exactly to say... did you have an idea?
as a threshold question, should that note go in the license-data repo
itself or the Fedora-legal documentation?
Jilayne
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
