On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 4:38 PM Jason L Tibbitts III <j@xxxxxx> wrote: > > >>>>> Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > You aren't required to use a copyright notice with MIT-0, > > or (if you think you need the copyright line for some reason, it's > > certainly not required from a Fedora allowance or SPDX representation > > perspective) you can put whatever you want in the copyright notice > > like "Copyright I don't claim any copyright" or what have you. > > That is not at all clear, so thank you for saying that. > > > The Unlicense is a fairly popular non-license license that contains > > "release into the public domain" rhetoric if that's what you're > > looking for. We wouldn't recommend this but you can see that there are > > zillions of legacy public domain dedication formulations that have > > been allowed in Fedora. > > The Unlicense is very interesting; thanks for the reference. I think it > basically says what I was trying to. > > Just to be clear, I'm reading the second sentence as a recommendation > against just lifting one of the many public domain dedications that are > allowed or coming up with my own, as opposed to being a recommendation > against the Unlicense. I meant it to refer to lifting one of the many bespoke public domain dedications, but in a sense the Unlicense isn't different from Fedora's perspective. Fedora doesn't (currently) specifically recommend the Unlicense for anything; it is, however, an allowed license. The difference between the Unlicense and using a legacy bespoke PDD is that the latter seems significantly less justifiable just because we generally value de facto standardization of FOSS licenses and arguably picking the Unlicense supports that (since it's already a pretty widely used license) while using some random PDD from 1993 arguably does not support that. AFAIK Fedora actually does not currently have any specific license recommendations for anything other than (if this hasn't changed) the use of CC-BY-SA-4.0 for Fedora documentation. In the past I believe Fedora had some informal recommendations around use of the GPL (GPLv2?), LGPL (2.1?) and the MIT license for certain specific categories of things, and I think there were some informal recommendations to use CC0 in some situations and (though I imagine this had no practical significance) SIL OFL 1.1 for fonts. 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
