On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 1:08 PM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Wouldn't dropping licenses (or exceptions) that entail no conditions > just be another way to do "effective license analysis" (i.e. who needs > to decide whether the license entails no conditions)? > Listing everything might be verbose, but it at least has the benefit > of being *simple*, and doesn't involve judgement calls like "this > license doesn't matter in this case"). The assumption here is that packages will continue to be reviewed carefully wrt licensing and that new licenses encountered in source code will continue to go through the Fedora review process and be added to fedora-license-data. I was thinking that the excludability characteristic could be recorded at the time that a license identifier is added to fedora-license-data. It wouldn't be package-specific, except that if the otherwise excludable license is the only identifiable license text applicable to a package, it would have to be listed. > Just listing the licenses of the files in the upstream project > (whether the contents end up shipped in our packages or not) is "just > passing through" information and not particularly useful (in which > case we could just say "the license of this package is the license of > this upstream project, go look it up yourself" instead of including a > License tag in the RPM). Agreed, I think this was one of the main reasons why we ended up not adopting a "license of the source code" approach. 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
