On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 11:05 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Ralf Corsépius: > > > Am 31.07.22 um 18:57 schrieb Richard Fontana: > >> There are so few non-legacy, today-commonly-used, > >> generally-accepted-as-FOSS licenses that are not viewed as > >> GPLv3-compatible that I think it might be better for Ansible to just > >> list those (the only one I can think of is EPL-2.0), or to list a > >> small set of recommended/acceptable commonly-used FOSS licenses. > > 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". > > But there's the general license review process for that, and that's not > going to go away? It's just that claims regarding GPLv2 or GPLv3 > compatibility are no longer an expected deliverable of the review > process. I think the problem here is not that GPLcompatibility of *new* licenses may need to be determined, but that *existing* compatibility matrices have been removed from the documentation for licenses *that were already approved* as "good". Fabio _______________________________________________ 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
