Hi,
During package review [1] the license terms of py-sdl [2] were flagged as problematic. Therefore I'm passing this on to Fedora Legal for deciding on
a) Does py-sdl2 come with an acceptable license? b) If so, which license should be specified?
For the opposing views on the matter, please see comment 1 and 2 in the Bugzilla ticket.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283541 [2] https://github.com/py-sdl/py-sdl2/blob/master/doc/copying.rst
Cheers,
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 2:20 PM Sandro lists@penguinpee.nl wrote:
Hi,
During package review [1] the license terms of py-sdl [2] were flagged as problematic. Therefore I'm passing this on to Fedora Legal for deciding on
a) Does py-sdl2 come with an acceptable license? b) If so, which license should be specified?
For the opposing views on the matter, please see comment 1 and 2 in the Bugzilla ticket.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283541 [2] https://github.com/py-sdl/py-sdl2/blob/master/doc/copying.rst
I basically side with Sandro here. It's not clear how best to represent this as an SPDX expression in a spec file License: field (if that's even a question) because of two complexities that Ben's comment relates to. First, what is the author saying in the first part? I think Ben is basically saying we should see that as `CC0-1.0`. But the author only mentions CC0 because they say "since it is not enough anymore to tell people: 'hey, just do with it whatever you like to do'". From the Fedora perspective, it *is* enough, so I would see this part as `LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain` (assuming the relevant part of the text were recorded under our current tedious procedure etc.) and even if you view it as a sort of public domain | CC0 dual license, for code Fedora would represent that as just `LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain` since (unless a usage exception applies) `CC0-1.0` is not-allowed and thus is ignored if it is part of a dual license where the other license is allowed.
Okay, that brings us to the Zlib part. This suggests that the Zlib license grant applies "In cases, where the law prohibits the recognition of Public Domain software". This statement embodies a deep-rooted confusion in open source legal culture about the nature of these public domain dedications going back two decades or more at this point. (I won't bother to go into that whole topic.) Suffice it to say, that from Fedora's point of view, it is assumed that the law does not prohibit the recognition of "Public Domain software" in the sense meant here. So I'd just ignore the Zlib part.
So, I see this as a candidate for `LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain`.
Richard
On 24-07-2024 20:36, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 2:20 PM Sandro lists@penguinpee.nl wrote:
Hi,
During package review [1] the license terms of py-sdl [2] were flagged as problematic. Therefore I'm passing this on to Fedora Legal for deciding on
a) Does py-sdl2 come with an acceptable license? b) If so, which license should be specified?
For the opposing views on the matter, please see comment 1 and 2 in the Bugzilla ticket.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283541 [2] https://github.com/py-sdl/py-sdl2/blob/master/doc/copying.rst
I basically side with Sandro here. It's not clear how best to represent this as an SPDX expression in a spec file License: field (if that's even a question) because of two complexities that Ben's comment relates to. First, what is the author saying in the first part? I think Ben is basically saying we should see that as `CC0-1.0`. But the author only mentions CC0 because they say "since it is not enough anymore to tell people: 'hey, just do with it whatever you like to do'". From the Fedora perspective, it *is* enough, so I would see this part as `LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain` (assuming the relevant part of the text were recorded under our current tedious procedure etc.) and even if you view it as a sort of public domain | CC0 dual license, for code Fedora would represent that as just `LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain` since (unless a usage exception applies) `CC0-1.0` is not-allowed and thus is ignored if it is part of a dual license where the other license is allowed.
Okay, that brings us to the Zlib part. This suggests that the Zlib license grant applies "In cases, where the law prohibits the recognition of Public Domain software". This statement embodies a deep-rooted confusion in open source legal culture about the nature of these public domain dedications going back two decades or more at this point. (I won't bother to go into that whole topic.) Suffice it to say, that from Fedora's point of view, it is assumed that the law does not prohibit the recognition of "Public Domain software" in the sense meant here. So I'd just ignore the Zlib part.
So, I see this as a candidate for `LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain`.
Thank you, Richard. I will submit an MR for public-domain-text.txt [1].
[1] https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/public-domai...
-- Sandro
-
Richard Fontana -
Sandro