On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 3:34 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > Hello, > > Python PEPs are licensed as: > > > This document is placed in the public domain or under the CC0-1.0-Universal > > license, whichever is more permissive. > > How do I express this statement in a license field of a Fedora package, if the > package includes a copy of the PEP text? > > Do I use: > > License: CC0-1.0 > > because "Public Domain" is discouraged? > > Or do I use: > > License: LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain > > because Public Domain is more permissive? > > Or do I use: > > License: LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR CC0-1.0 > > because the "whichever is more permissive" clause is to be determined by > whoever wants to distribute/modify this and not by me? > > Or do I use something different entirely? Offhand, I'm not sure - please submit an issue for fedora-license-data as though it were a new license, since the answer might be that we should treat this as a single license. The thing that's very odd is the "whichever is more permissive" since it's hard to see how anyone could really determine that. I wonder if it should be taken as a normal disjunctive dual license, just badly phrased. > Now suppose I have *a script* licensed like this. Do I make different choices > because CC0-1.0 is not allowed for code? Possibly. I think the Fedora perspective ought to be that CC0 *is* less permissive than traditional public domain dedications.