On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 1:39 PM Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> wrote: > > On 22/07/31 12:57PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > I can go into why I don't think it's worthwhile, if there's interest. > > Feel free to go into more details if you'd like :). Sure, well: Fedora had an informal but publicly stated policy, which in retrospect seems quite progressive, of ordinarily not looking into cross-package license compatibility issues. There were some notable exceptions involving prominent issues that did not arise uniquely within Fedora (the one that comes to mind is Fedora treating OpenSSL as covered by the GPL's system library exception). But also even license compatibility issues isolated to a particular package have mostly been ignored or treated as unimportant for a variety of practical, policy, interpretive and doctrinal reasons that are really not specific to Fedora but found in other LInux distributions and in upstream projects generally. I think we would look carefully at a license compatibility issue if someone raised it on a *package-specific basis* (possibly concluding it was a non-issue, possibly not ) but I don't think we have an interest in encouraging this particularly. So anyway given that state of affairs I don't think it's useful to track GPLv2 and GPLv3 compatibility issues for new allowed licenses going forward, on a non-package-specific basis. 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
