On 7/26/22 12:03 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
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.
just to add some color to a couple things raised here. As may be obvious
at this point, the process of reviewing and updating all the licensing
and legal related documentation has raised some questions and also
brought to light other things that could probably use a re-review as
well. The %license advice in the packaging guidelines and re-reviewing
Artistic-1.0 are two such examples. In the spirit of some kind of
"project management" (not trying to boil the ocean) and reaching the
immediate goal of publishing the new Fedora-legal documentation, etc.,
we have noted various things like these for later/further investigation
or review. :)
Jilayne
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
_______________________________________________
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
