Greetings, As part of some ongoing efforts to improve information relating to Fedora licensing and licensing policy, we want to provide better documentation around the various license approval categories for Fedora, as currently set forth here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main but which probably will live in the future on docs.fedoraproject.org. Here's a rough draft which I wanted to publish here for review. Feedback/criticisms/suggestions welcome. Side note: This preserves Tom Callaway's historical usage of "good" to mean "Fedora-approved", but I have mixed feelings about this terminology. 1. Licenses for Code “Code” means software code, any other functional material whose principal purpose is to control or facilitate the building of packages, such as an RPM spec file, and other kinds of material that the Fedora Council has classified as "code" rather than "content", but does not include font files. [Comment: This annoyingly and confusingly does not line up with definitions in the FPCA, but Fedora should get rid of the FPCA anyway] A license for code is “good” if the Fedora Project determines that the license is a free/libre//open source license. [Not sure if it's helpful to add the following:]

In making this determination, Fedora historically relied primarily on the Free Software Definition as maintained and interpreted by the Free Software Foundation, but out of necessity Fedora passed judgment on many licenses never addressed by the FSF and, in the process, built up an informal body of interpretation and policymaking (admittedly, mostly undocumented) that went far beyond what the FSF had done. Fedora has also sometimes considered the decisions of other community Linux distributions and other important efforts to define and apply FLOSS norms, most notably the OSI’s Open Source Definition. In a small number of cases, Fedora has disagreed with decisions of the FSF and OSI regarding whether particular licenses are FLOSS. 2. Licenses for Documentation Any license that is good for code is also good for documentation. In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for documentation if (a) the license meets the standards for good licenses for code, (b) the license is designed primarily for technical documentation or otherwise has a history of substantial use in free software communities for documentation, and (c) the license is not commonly or normally used for code. [Comment: this feels unsatisfactory to me, for multiple reasons, but I think it does accurately represent the historical Fedora policy.] 3. Licenses for Content “Content” means any material that is not code, documentation, fonts or binary firmware. Any license that is good for code is also good for content. In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for content if it restricts or prohibits modification but otherwise meets the standards for good licenses for code. 4. Licenses for Fonts Any license that is good for code is also good for fonts. In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for fonts if it contains a nominal prohibition on resale or distribution in isolation but otherwise meets the standards for good licenses for code. 5. Licenses for Binary Firmware Some applications, drivers, and hardware require binary-only firmware to boot Fedora or function properly. Fedora permits inclusion of these files if they meet certain requirements [currently set forth at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Binary_Firmware but the non-license part of this needs to move somewhere else ]. Any license that is good for code is also good for binary firmware. In addition, Fedora may designate a particular firmware license as good for firmware if the terms in the license that would not be acceptable in a good code license are limited to the following: * Requirements that the firmware be redistributed only as incorporated in the redistributor's product (or as a maintenance update for existing end users of the redistributor's product), possibly limited further to those products of the redistributor that support or contain the hardware associated with the licensed firmware * Requirements that the redistributor to pass on or impose conditions on users that are no more restrictive than those authorized by Fedora itself with respect to firmware licenses * Prohibitions on modification, reverse engineering, disassembly or decompilation * Requirements that use be in conjunction with the hardware associated with the firmware license Richard _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org 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/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Dne 08. 02. 22 v 5:52 Richard Fontana napsal(a): > Greetings, > > As part of some ongoing efforts to improve information relating to > Fedora licensing and licensing policy, we want to provide better > documentation around the various license approval categories for > Fedora, as currently set forth here: The document sometimes uses uncommon words. Maybe common in jargon, but hard to process for non-English native speaker (maintainer) E.g., * Requirements that the redistributor to pass on or impose conditions on users * if it contains a nominal prohibition on resale or distribution in isolation If this is meant as guidelines for maintainers I would like to see simplified English here.

I'm working on the draft documentation that will contain the explanation of Fedora license approval criteria by category. I'm rewriting the explanation of the "allowed for documentation" category in a significant enough way that I think I ought to post it here: Fedora may designate a license as allowed for documentation if the license: (a) contains terms no more restrictive than the terms of any of the licenses that Fedora treated as "good licenses" for documentation as of 1 July 2020; (b) is designed primarily for technical documentation or otherwise has a history of substantial use in free software communities for documentation, and (c) is not commonly or normally used for code. Explanation: Basically, (a) is what's different: the description is no longer asserting that these licenses "generally" meet the standards for code, because I feel that isn't really a defensible statement (and the use of "generally" feels sort of squishy). I am not sure all of the existing "good" documentation licenses would meet Fedora's present-day standards for libre licensing (that is, I am not sure Fedora would really find a hypothetical use of such a license for code to be acceptable) -- but I also don't propose revisiting the past approval of those licenses, most of which were, I believe, approved by Fedora many years ago. Rather than have Fedora imply that, say, the various versions of the GFDL are truly free/libre, I would rather say that the boundaries of the category are set by what Fedora decided in the past. The July 1, 2020 date is not arbitrary; it is (I think) approximately the time at which Tom Callaway stopped acting in his longstanding Fedora Legal role. An alternative and possibly better, but similar, approach would be to analyze all of the existing good documentation licenses and note any kinds of arguably non-libre terms in them (for example, the invariant sections terms of the GFDL), and then develop a set of criteria based on that analysis. However that would be a lot of work and I don't feel I have the time to devote to that. :-) That alternative approach would then resemble how the firmware license criteria are defined. Of course to assess whether a new documentation is acceptable under the draft standard above you'd have to at least informally review all the existing good (or, ~now, allowed) documentation licenses, so in a sense this is just putting off work that would have to be done eventually. Richard On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 11:52 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > Greetings, > > As part of some ongoing efforts to improve information relating to > Fedora licensing and licensing policy, we want to provide better > documentation around the various license approval categories for > Fedora, as currently set forth here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main > but which probably will live in the future on docs.fedoraproject.org. > > Here's a rough draft which I wanted to publish here for review. > Feedback/criticisms/suggestions welcome. > > Side note: This preserves Tom Callaway's historical usage of "good" to > mean "Fedora-approved", but I have mixed feelings about this > terminology. > > 1. Licenses for Code > > “Code” means software code, any other functional material whose > principal purpose is to control or facilitate the building of > packages, such as an RPM spec file, and other kinds of material that > the Fedora Council has classified as "code" rather than "content", but > does not include font files. > > [Comment: This annoyingly and confusingly does not line up with > definitions in the FPCA, but Fedora should get rid of the FPCA anyway] > > A license for code is “good” if the Fedora Project determines that the > license is a free/libre//open source license. > > [Not sure if it's helpful to add the following:] > > In making this determination, Fedora historically relied primarily on > the Free Software Definition as maintained and interpreted by the Free > Software Foundation, but out of necessity Fedora passed judgment on > many licenses never addressed by the FSF and, in the process, built up > an informal body of interpretation and policymaking (admittedly, > mostly undocumented) that went far beyond what the FSF had done. > Fedora has also sometimes considered the decisions of other community > Linux distributions and other important efforts to define and apply > FLOSS norms, most notably the OSI’s Open Source Definition. In a small > number of cases, Fedora has disagreed with decisions of the FSF and > OSI regarding whether particular licenses are FLOSS. > > 2. Licenses for Documentation > > Any license that is good for code is also good for documentation. > > In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for documentation > if (a) the license meets the standards for good licenses for code, (b) > the license is designed primarily for technical documentation or > otherwise has a history of substantial use in free software > communities for documentation, and (c) the license is not commonly or > normally used for code. > > [Comment: this feels unsatisfactory to me, for multiple reasons, but I > think it does accurately represent the historical Fedora policy.] > > 3. Licenses for Content > > “Content” means any material that is not code, documentation, fonts or > binary firmware. > > Any license that is good for code is also good for content. > > In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for content if it > restricts or prohibits modification but otherwise meets the standards > for good licenses for code. > > 4. Licenses for Fonts > > Any license that is good for code is also good for fonts. > > In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for fonts if it > contains a nominal prohibition on resale or distribution in isolation > but otherwise meets the standards for good licenses for code. > > 5. Licenses for Binary Firmware > > Some applications, drivers, and hardware require binary-only firmware > to boot Fedora or function properly. Fedora permits inclusion of these > files if they meet certain requirements [currently set forth at: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Binary_Firmware but the > non-license part of this needs to move somewhere else ]. > > Any license that is good for code is also good for binary firmware. > > In addition, Fedora may designate a particular firmware license as > good for firmware if the terms in the license that would not be > acceptable in a good code license are limited to the following: > > * Requirements that the firmware be redistributed only as incorporated > in the redistributor's product (or as a maintenance update for > existing end users of the redistributor's product), possibly limited > further to those products of the redistributor that support or contain > the hardware associated with the licensed firmware > > * Requirements that the redistributor to pass on or impose conditions > on users that are no more restrictive than those authorized by Fedora > itself with respect to firmware licenses > > * Prohibitions on modification, reverse engineering, disassembly or > decompilation > > * Requirements that use be in conjunction with the hardware associated > with the firmware license > > > Richard