On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 3:37 AM Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm slightly surprised that you decided to hide the unapproved license part > "Artistic-1.0-Perl" from "GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl" expression. > > I understand it makes the License tag more comprehensible. That's not really the reason. It's the assumption that in any case where there's a dual license involving a 'good' (allowed) license and a 'bad' (not-allowed) license, we assume that Fedora shouldn't be seen as extending a non-Fedora license downstream, even symbolically. For example, "GPL-2.0 OR LicenseRef-Horrible-Proprietary-License" would look inconsistent with Fedora's own policies. > On the other hand, I worry it will complicate merging user-supplied patches > back to upstreams. Because users contributing to Fedora will see only GPL, > hence they will understand their patches are GPL. But then upstream will assume > or insisit on the full "GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl" combination. > The will make a friction because Fedora maintainers will need to renegotiate > a license of the patch with the patch author to get the "OR Artistic-1.0-Perl" > part back. (Though I admin this case quite theoritical. I haven't seen many > patches from Fedora users. Fedora-origin patches are usually authored by > Fedora maintainers.) Hmm, interesting issue. I guess if a Fedora user is providing a copyrightable patch in, say, a Bugzilla ticket, it's unclear. Not because of the License: field, but more because of the concept that Fedora is not actually distributing anything under the Artistic License. Even if the user's copy of the repository has the same dual license as upstream, it's not clear because Fedora policy would seem to suggest that the user can't submit a patch under the Artistic License. But that's also true even if we authorize "GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl" in the License: field. All the more reason to accelerate the reassessment review of the Artistic License. :-) > Does hiding the unapproved licenses from a License tag also influnce which > license files are packaged with %license macro? Should we because of that > start removing Artistic-1.0-Perl texts from Perl packages? We haven't really started to tackle the %license issue yet. For now I would suggest not changing any existing practice. Richard _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-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/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
