> Am 31.07.22 um 18:57 schrieb Richard Fontana: > I do not agree > with this view and consider this decision not to be helpful. > > These licenses might not be "commonly used", but if they are used, these > are the controversal ones, that need to be looked into, exactly because > they "not commonly used". > > Provocant question: Do you want contributors to contact redhat-legal in > such cases, as we were required to do in the early days of Fedora? > > To me, this reads as a pretty nasty regression in Fedora's workflow, > which should be reconsidered/reverted. The issue I was commenting on here is specific to an upstream project (Ansible) that happened to be relying on data in the Fedora wiki license list, not Fedora. It was sort of off topic. Fedora AFAIK has never had a policy of expecting Fedora-related projects to only be under GPLv2 or GPLv3 compatible licenses, although I think in practice that has generally been the case. Richard _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
