On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 11:02 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We did this because in essentially no real-world case > was the information ever used to take any action with respect to an > actual or proposed Fedora package. > [snip] > Any Fedora community member who has a concern about a license > compatibility issue involving a specific Fedora package or proposed > Fedora package is encouraged to raise it (probably most appropriately > in a Bugzilla bug) and it will be looked at in a context-specific way. > This context-specific analysis will consider not only architectural > issues (of the sort referred to by Miroslav) but also the licensing, > development and political history of the code at issue and general > relevant FOSS community practices. If it will prove useful we will try > to document some generalized conclusions in the Fedora license > documentation. Speaking of "political history", there is a lot of talk about the unintentional incompatibility of (Apache-2.0 AND GPL-2.0) but nothing about the allegedly intentional incompatibility of (CDDL-1.0 AND GPL-*). Would you really want to reconsider previously thoroughly litigated matters such as cdrtools or OpenZFS each individually? These are 2 real-world cases that were probably considered on their own merits but nevertheless ultimately banned by the documented incompatibility in the license wiki. While I don't think anyone is seriously proposing going back to the first one in the year 2022 AD, I can't help but wonder if the author of the former might have been one motivation for capturing this information in the first place LOL. And OpenZFS might reasonably be proposed for inclusion in Fedora now that it is relaxing its restrictions around third party modules such as Nvidia's driver and at least one prominent distribution ships it. I don't think we need a big old "will it blend?" list, it's not necessary to consider and document the GPL compatibility of each and every license on the Fedora allowed list. But I do think there is merit in a Not Allowed SPDX "AND" Expressions List that is scoped similarly to the Not Allowed Fedora Licenses List, that is only to combinations which exist in actual software that has been proposed for or previously included in Fedora. If you feel that (Apache-2.0 AND GPL-2.0) doesn't belong on it due to the different history of that incompatibility that's fantastic, but I would love to hear your counterexample for how anything with (CDDL-1.0 AND GPL-2.0) could ever possibly be allowed. :-D _______________________________________________ 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
