On 24-07-2024 20:36, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 2:20 PM Sandro <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
During package review [1] the license terms of py-sdl [2] were flagged
as problematic. Therefore I'm passing this on to Fedora Legal for
deciding on
a) Does py-sdl2 come with an acceptable license?
b) If so, which license should be specified?
For the opposing views on the matter, please see comment 1 and 2 in the
Bugzilla ticket.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283541
[2] https://github.com/py-sdl/py-sdl2/blob/master/doc/copying.rst
I basically side with Sandro here. It's not clear how best to
represent this as an SPDX expression in a spec file License: field (if
that's even a question) because of two complexities that Ben's comment
relates to. First, what is the author saying in the first part? I
think Ben is basically saying we should see that as `CC0-1.0`. But the
author only mentions CC0 because they say "since it is not enough
anymore to tell people: 'hey, just do with it whatever you like to
do'". From the Fedora perspective, it *is* enough, so I would see this
part as `LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain` (assuming the relevant part
of the text were recorded under our current tedious procedure etc.)
and even if you view it as a sort of public domain | CC0 dual license,
for code Fedora would represent that as just
`LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain` since (unless a usage exception
applies) `CC0-1.0` is not-allowed and thus is ignored if it is part of
a dual license where the other license is allowed.
Okay, that brings us to the Zlib part. This suggests that the Zlib
license grant applies "In cases, where the law prohibits the
recognition of Public Domain software". This statement embodies a
deep-rooted confusion in open source legal culture about the nature of
these public domain dedications going back two decades or more at this
point. (I won't bother to go into that whole topic.) Suffice it to
say, that from Fedora's point of view, it is assumed that the law does
not prohibit the recognition of "Public Domain software" in the sense
meant here. So I'd just ignore the Zlib part.
So, I see this as a candidate for `LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain`.
Thank you, Richard. I will submit an MR for public-domain-text.txt [1].
[1]
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/public-domain-text.txt
-- Sandro
--
_______________________________________________
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
