Re: Making no-conditions identifiers optional in the License: field

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

 



On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 08:42:19PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 7:13 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > >    License: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause-Clear AND CDDL-1.0 AND copyleft-next-0.3.1 AND GPL-1.0-or-later AND GPL-1.0-or-later-WITH-Linux-syscall-note AND GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-only-WITH-Linux-syscall-note AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later-WITH-GCC-exception-2.0 AND GPL-2.0-or-later-WITH-Linux-syscall-note AND ISC AND LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.0-or-later-WITH-Linux-syscall-note AND LGPL-2.1-only AND LGPL-2.1-only-WITH-Linux-syscall-note AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later-WITH-Linux-syscall-note AND Linux-OpenIB AND MIT AND MPL-1.1 AND Redistributable, no modification permitted AND X11 AND Zlib
> > >
> > but then this would be an exception to our original policy? and how
> > would we articulate that? I'm not sure why this is really any "better"
> > than your original - it's just shorter and truncated.
> >
> > oh, and we should take a look at the "Redistributable, no modification
> > permitted" ones... that is likely the firmware licenses that were never
> > captured
> 
> In the kernel specifically, I think 'Redistributable, no modification
> permitted' resulted from a bugzilla ticket filed many years ago by
> Alexandre Oliva where he pointed out that 'GPLv2' as the kernel
> license tag was incorrect because there was some firmware hex code in
> at least one source file (this was some years after the creation of
> the linux-firmware repository upstream). I remember verifying that he
> was correct but I wonder if that code is still in the kernel today.

Some kernel folks have examined this in more detail[1] and thus far
can't find any currently built files that justify the continued
existance of the additional 'Redistributable, no modification
permitted' clause, so they're intending to drop it.

If someone does later identify files that stil justify this, the
SPDX license expression can be adjusted at that time.

With regards,
Daniel

[1] https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/2648#note_1538895124
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
_______________________________________________
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