[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Where are the OFL* licenses?
Hi Jerry,
Good catch! I think what may have happened is that OFL-1.1 was on the
Fedora allowed-fonts list for some time and mapped to SPDX. But more
recently, SPDX added the additional identifiers related to reserved font
names to capture when that is explicitly triggered or not.
So, it's a matter of Fedora now reviewing those explicit scenarios and
adding those ids to the data. I've added an issue to this end here:
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/81
Could you add the package name in that issue for reference?
Thanks!
Jilayne
On 10/17/22 11:41 AM, Jerry James wrote:
I just ran rpmlint over a package under the OFL-1.1-RFN license,
with
the rpmlint-fedora-license-data package installed. I got "W:
invalid-license OFL-1.1-RFN". I undertook a search on the allowed [1]
and not allowed [2] license pages. Only "OFL-1.1" appears anywhere,
under the "All licenses" section of [1]. (And, faithfully reproducing
this, "OFL-1.1" is the only OFL* license that appears in the
rpmlint-fedora-license-data package.)
The underlying license data [3] from which [1] and [2] are generated
lists all of OFL-1.0, OFL-1.0-RFN, OFL-1.0-no-RFN, OFL-1.1,
OFL-1.1-RFN, and OFL-1.1-no-RFN. Why aren't the other licenses
showing up on [1] and in rpmlint-fedora-license-data? Is it because
"OFL-1.1" is the only one of the six that has a "Y" in both the
"OSI?"
and "FSFLibre?" columns of licenses.md? If so, what does that imply
about the status of the other 5 licenses for Fedora?
References:
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/
[3] https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data