I want to clarify one thing I am working on. When I have this string in License tag in spec: Good License or Bad license Then the result is Good license and the package is allowed to be in Fedora, right?

On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:46:44AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: >On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:22 AM Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> I want to clarify one thing I am working on. When I have this string in License tag in spec: >> >> Good License or Bad license >> >> Then the result is Good license and the package is allowed to be in Fedora, right? > >So first of all if I change your question to be about the actual >underlying license terms of the package as opposed to the >representation in the spec file, I believe the answer must be "yes" >and there are probably a lot of examples of this in Fedora. (Think of >any arbitrary package that says it's under some FOSS license and also >says informally that proprietary licenses are also available.) > >With the spec file, though, I believe there is an inconsistency in how >Fedora deals with this, but this is just a casual impression. On the >one hand, there is the common case of traditionally-licensed Perl >modules (typically, a dual license involving unversioned GPL and a >license identified as the Artistic License 1.0 [which I realize exists >in multiple forms, but let's ignore that]). Fedora spec files for such >Perl module packages generally say something like "GPL or Artistic", >even though Fedora classifies the Artistic License as a "bad" license. >I *think* there may be other examples, not involving Perl modules or >the Artistic License, where the code is dual licensed under a good >license and a bad license and the spec file only gives the good >license. The only rationale I could come up with for the difference in >approach is that the Artistic License, while "bad" from Fedora's >perspective, is generally seen as plausibly-FOSS (it's an OSI-approved >license, for one thing). > >I think it comes down to whether Fedora wants to have spec files that >say, for example, "GPL or Proprietary" much as it has spec files that >say "GPL or Artistic". It's true there is inconsistency regarding the License tag in the spec file. As the package maintainer and as part of the Fedora project, I would prefer that the License tag in the spec reflect the license terms that we are distributing the built package against. So in the case of Perl modules that are generally GPL or Artistic, the Fedora project is really redistributing them under the terms of the GPL only, right? Does it follow that we [Fedora] take an open source project that is dual licensed and use the license that is acceptable in our project and redistribute under those terms? Is that even a thing one can do? Given the "or" usage, my assumption is yes. The author is giving the downstream user the choice of using that work under the terms of the GPL or the terms of the Artistic license. In the case of Fedora, we've deemed Artistic undesirable which means our use of the modules is technically under the terms of the GPL. For me, I would prefer to see this reflected in the License tags in spec files so we can see how we're integrating components in to Fedora. If we note a license that we can't use or that we are not using, it makes it harder to see at a glance _what_ terms actually apply to that component. And that makes it harder for other packagers looking for license-compatible dependencies. I realize this is yet another work project and also that I may be incorrect regarding what we can and can't do with regard to dual-licensed projects. If we are unable to say "we're using the Perl modules under the terms of the GPL" and exclude the Artistic license, then really the "or" boolean doesn't apply and it's really always "and". So many licenses, so many questions.... -- David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com&gt; Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT _______________________________________________ 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

On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:46:44AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:22 AM Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: >> >> I want to clarify one thing I am working on. When I have this string >> in License tag in spec: >> >>     Good License or Bad license >> >> Then the result is Good license and the package is allowed to be in >> Fedora, right? > > So first of all if I change your question to be about the actual > underlying license terms of the package as opposed to the > representation in the spec file, I believe the answer must be "yes" > and there are probably a lot of examples of this in Fedora. (Think of > any arbitrary package that says it's under some FOSS license and also > says informally that proprietary licenses are also available.) > > With the spec file, though, I believe there is an inconsistency in how > Fedora deals with this, but this is just a casual impression. On the > one hand, there is the common case of traditionally-licensed Perl > modules (typically, a dual license involving unversioned GPL and a > license identified as the Artistic License 1.0 [which I realize exists > in multiple forms, but let's ignore that]). Fedora spec files for such > Perl module packages generally say something like "GPL or Artistic", > even though Fedora classifies the Artistic License as a "bad" license. > I *think* there may be other examples, not involving Perl modules or > the Artistic License, where the code is dual licensed under a good > license and a bad license and the spec file only gives the good > license. The only rationale I could come up with for the difference in > approach is that the Artistic License, while "bad" from Fedora's > perspective, is generally seen as plausibly-FOSS (it's an OSI-approved > license, for one thing). > > I think it comes down to whether Fedora wants to have spec files that > say, for example, "GPL or Proprietary" much as it has spec files that > say "GPL or Artistic". It's true there is inconsistency regarding the License tag in the spec file.  As the package maintainer and as part of the Fedora project, I would prefer that the License tag in the spec reflect the license terms that we are distributing the built package against.  So in the case of Perl modules that are generally GPL or Artistic, the Fedora project is really redistributing them under the terms of the GPL only, right?

Does it follow that we [Fedora] take an open source project that is dual licensed and use the license that is acceptable in our project and redistribute under those terms?  Is that even a thing one can do? Given the "or" usage, my assumption is yes.  The author is giving the downstream user the choice of using that work under the terms of the GPL or the terms of the Artistic license.  In the case of Fedora, we've deemed Artistic undesirable which means our use of the modules is technically under the terms of the GPL.

For me, I would prefer to see this reflected in the License tags in spec files so we can see how we're integrating components in to Fedora.  If we note a license that we can't use or that we are not using, it makes it harder to see at a glance _what_ terms actually apply to that component.  And that makes it harder for other packagers looking for license-compatible dependencies.

I realize this is yet another work project and also that I may be incorrect regarding what we can and can't do with regard to dual-licensed projects.  If we are unable to say "we're using the Perl modules under the terms of the GPL" and exclude the Artistic license, then really the "or" boolean doesn't apply and it's really always "and".

So many licenses, so many questions....

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 12:06 AM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On 1/4/22 9:27 AM, David Cantrell wrote: > > Does it follow that we [Fedora] take an open source project that is > > dual licensed and use the license that is acceptable in our project > > and redistribute under those terms? Is that even a thing one can do? > > Given the "or" usage, my assumption is yes. The author is giving the > > downstream user the choice of using that work under the terms of the > > GPL or the terms of the Artistic license. In the case of Fedora, > > we've deemed Artistic undesirable which means our use of the modules > > is technically under the terms of the GPL. > Correct. > > > > > For me, I would prefer to see this reflected in the License tags in > > spec files so we can see how we're integrating components in to > > Fedora. If we note a license that we can't use or that we are not > > using, it makes it harder to see at a glance _what_ terms actually > > apply to that component. And that makes it harder for other packagers > > looking for license-compatible dependencies. > Agreed. I sort of agree. > > I realize this is yet another work project and also that I may be > > incorrect regarding what we can and can't do with regard to > > dual-licensed projects. If we are unable to say "we're using the Perl > > modules under the terms of the GPL" and exclude the Artistic license, > > then really the "or" boolean doesn't apply and it's really always > > "and". > I think you mean that there would not be a need for the "OR" operator in > Fedora, but there are open source projects that may be licensed under a > choice of two "good" Fedora licenses, in which case, it would make sense > to simply pass downstream the choice of both, I would think. The only reason why "GPL+ or Artistic" (or, presumably in SPDX notation, "GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0") shouldn't be used by Fedora is that Artistic-1.0 is "bad" from Fedora's perspective and Fedora has a policy of not distributing code in packages under "bad" licenses. Or else we should revisit that classification of Artistic-1.0, or else document that there is a special exception for Perl modules because Perl module developers upstream objected to the use of merely 'GPL" in the spec file license tag. (I don't really like that last possibility.) Otherwise, if the disjunctive license expression involves two licenses Fedora considers "good", then I agree with Jilayne, the choice should be passed on -- even if there is some argument that it *can't* be (which would mainly be for license compatibility reasons, I guess). That has in fact been the practice in Fedora, and in all the projects and products developed by Red Hat that I'm aware of. At Red Hat we've even explained this to the occasional customer who asks us which license of a FOSS-dual-licensed package, or file, we are shipping under. I am aware anecdotally that there are other companies that do the opposite: they are careful to somehow ceremonially or otherwise "pick" one of the licenses in the disjunct. It is important to note that this is *not* what is done upstream, i.e. by upstream projects using other projects' FOSS code, except in extremely rare cases, and I see Fedora, as well as Red Hat, as perpetuating that general upstream FOSS community practice of passing on FOSS license choices without further analysis. One reason for this is that it's generally never clear which of the licenses ought to be selected or would be preferable, if one had to make a choice. The result is more complex license identifier expressions in package metadata, but I think there the complexity is justified. What it actually *means* for an intermediary to distribute upstream code under the upstream choice of licenses, with conditions that might simultaneously apply to that intermediary on either side of the disjunct, I'm not entirely sure, but in all normal practical scenarios it never really matters -- which is another reason for the "pass the choice on" practice. I'd rather copy the practices of upstream community projects than the practices of GPL-phobic companies downstream, basically.

%{license:GPL+ or Artistic}

On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 12:39:50PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 05. 01. 22 v 11:16 Neal Gompa napsal(a): >> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 1:31 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 12:06 AM Jilayne Lovejoy >>> <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>> On 1/4/22 9:27 AM, David Cantrell wrote: >>>>> Does it follow that we [Fedora] take an open source project that is >>>>> dual licensed and use the license that is acceptable in our project >>>>> and redistribute under those terms?  Is that even a thing one can >>>>> do? >>>>> Given the "or" usage, my assumption is yes.  The author is giving >>>>> the >>>>> downstream user the choice of using that work under the terms of the >>>>> GPL or the terms of the Artistic license.  In the case of Fedora, >>>>> we've deemed Artistic undesirable which means our use of the modules >>>>> is technically under the terms of the GPL. >>>> Correct. >>>> >>>>> For me, I would prefer to see this reflected in the License tags in >>>>> spec files so we can see how we're integrating components in to >>>>> Fedora.  If we note a license that we can't use or that we are not >>>>> using, it makes it harder to see at a glance _what_ terms actually >>>>> apply to that component.  And that makes it harder for other >>>>> packagers >>>>> looking for license-compatible dependencies. >>>> Agreed. >>> I sort of agree. >>> >>>>> I realize this is yet another work project and also that I may be >>>>> incorrect regarding what we can and can't do with regard to >>>>> dual-licensed projects.  If we are unable to say "we're using the >>>>> Perl >>>>> modules under the terms of the GPL" and exclude the Artistic >>>>> license, >>>>> then really the "or" boolean doesn't apply and it's really always >>>>> "and". >>>> I think you mean that there would not be a need for the "OR" >>>> operator in >>>> Fedora, but there are open source projects that may be licensed >>>> under a >>>> choice of two "good" Fedora licenses, in which case, it would make >>>> sense >>>> to simply pass downstream the choice of both, I would think. >>> The only reason why "GPL+ or Artistic" (or, presumably in SPDX >>> notation, "GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0") shouldn't be used by >>> Fedora is that Artistic-1.0 is "bad" from Fedora's perspective and >>> Fedora has a policy of not distributing code in packages under "bad" >>> licenses. Or else we should revisit that classification of >>> Artistic-1.0, or else document that there is a special exception for >>> Perl modules because Perl module developers upstream objected to the >>> use of merely 'GPL" in the spec file license tag. (I don't really like >>> that last possibility.) >>> >>> Otherwise, if the disjunctive license expression involves two licenses >>> Fedora considers "good", then I agree with Jilayne, the choice should >>> be passed on -- even if there is some argument that it *can't* be >>> (which would mainly be for license compatibility reasons, I guess). >>> That has in fact been the practice in Fedora, and in all the projects >>> and products developed by Red Hat that I'm aware of. At Red Hat we've >>> even explained this to the occasional customer who asks us which >>> license of a FOSS-dual-licensed package, or file, we are shipping >>> under. >>> >>> I am aware anecdotally that there are other companies that do the >>> opposite: they are careful to somehow ceremonially or otherwise "pick" >>> one of the licenses in the disjunct. It is important to note that this >>> is *not* what is done upstream, i.e. by upstream projects using other >>> projects' FOSS code, except in extremely rare cases, and I see Fedora, >>> as well as Red Hat, as perpetuating that general upstream FOSS >>> community practice of passing on FOSS license choices without further >>> analysis. One reason for this is that it's generally never clear which >>> of the licenses ought to be selected or would be preferable, if one >>> had to make a choice. The result is more complex license identifier >>> expressions in package metadata, but I think there the complexity is >>> justified. >>> >>> What it actually *means* for an intermediary to distribute upstream >>> code under the upstream choice of licenses, with conditions that might >>> simultaneously apply to that intermediary on either side of the >>> disjunct, I'm not entirely sure, but in all normal practical scenarios >>> it never really matters -- which is another reason for the "pass the >>> choice on" practice. I'd rather copy the practices of upstream >>> community projects than the practices of GPL-phobic companies >>> downstream, basically. >>> >> With my upstream hat, I greatly prefer that Fedora *not* make >> decisions about the licenses. I even kind of prefer what Fedora does >> today with Perl modules (that is, document both "good" and "bad" >> licenses). With my Fedora contributor "hat" on (lol), I'd prefer to >> strip "bad" licenses since we never want to allow that choice of >> license combinations. I know some think that documenting "bad" >> licenses means we give permission to use under those terms (that's not >> even *close* to what that means, but meh). With my downstream consumer >> hat on, I worry that Fedora making decisions on licenses might lead to >> weird effects for me when working with other things. I'd prefer Fedora >> to stay out of picking licenses for packages and allow "runtime >> evaluation" of license combinations instead. >> >> All of this to say, I agree with Richard that we should more or less >> keep the status quo. >> > > Why the license tag couldn't be something like: > > License: upstream(GPL+ or Artistic) and fedora(GPL+) > > There could even be macro based e.g. on Mirek's tool to reduce the > upstream license set to Fedora license set: > > %{license:GPL+ or Artistic} > > because as a packager, I'd be much happier if I can just list the > upstream licenses and don't bother what is effective Fedora license. I don't think using a macro for the License tag is a good idea because it risks changing it to something invalid at each rebuild of the package.

  In the case of mass rebuilds and other builds that the maintainer may not do correctly, we risk introducing invalid values in the License tag.

Also, packages relicense from time to time, some more than others (e.g., Qt). It's best that we capture this as static data in the spec file tied to the version of the software being packaged.

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 12:06 AM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On 1/4/22 9:27 AM, David Cantrell wrote: > > Does it follow that we [Fedora] take an open source project that is > > dual licensed and use the license that is acceptable in our project > > and redistribute under those terms? Is that even a thing one can do? > > Given the "or" usage, my assumption is yes. The author is giving the > > downstream user the choice of using that work under the terms of the > > GPL or the terms of the Artistic license. In the case of Fedora, > > we've deemed Artistic undesirable which means our use of the modules > > is technically under the terms of the GPL. > Correct. > > > > > For me, I would prefer to see this reflected in the License tags in > > spec files so we can see how we're integrating components in to > > Fedora. If we note a license that we can't use or that we are not > > using, it makes it harder to see at a glance _what_ terms actually > > apply to that component. And that makes it harder for other packagers > > looking for license-compatible dependencies. > Agreed. I sort of agree. > > I realize this is yet another work project and also that I may be > > incorrect regarding what we can and can't do with regard to > > dual-licensed projects. If we are unable to say "we're using the Perl > > modules under the terms of the GPL" and exclude the Artistic license, > > then really the "or" boolean doesn't apply and it's really always > > "and". > I think you mean that there would not be a need for the "OR" operator in > Fedora, but there are open source projects that may be licensed under a > choice of two "good" Fedora licenses, in which case, it would make sense > to simply pass downstream the choice of both, I would think. The only reason why "GPL+ or Artistic" (or, presumably in SPDX notation, "GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0") shouldn't be used by Fedora is that Artistic-1.0 is "bad" from Fedora's perspective and Fedora has a policy of not distributing code in packages under "bad" licenses. Or else we should revisit that classification of Artistic-1.0, or else document that there is a special exception for Perl modules because Perl module developers upstream objected to the use of merely 'GPL" in the spec file license tag. (I don't really like that last possibility.) Otherwise, if the disjunctive license expression involves two licenses Fedora considers "good", then I agree with Jilayne, the choice should be passed on -- even if there is some argument that it *can't* be (which would mainly be for license compatibility reasons, I guess). That has in fact been the practice in Fedora, and in all the projects and products developed by Red Hat that I'm aware of. At Red Hat we've even explained this to the occasional customer who asks us which license of a FOSS-dual-licensed package, or file, we are shipping under. I am aware anecdotally that there are other companies that do the opposite: they are careful to somehow ceremonially or otherwise "pick" one of the licenses in the disjunct. It is important to note that this is *not* what is done upstream, i.e. by upstream projects using other projects' FOSS code, except in extremely rare cases, and I see Fedora, as well as Red Hat, as perpetuating that general upstream FOSS community practice of passing on FOSS license choices without further analysis. One reason for this is that it's generally never clear which of the licenses ought to be selected or would be preferable, if one had to make a choice. The result is more complex license identifier expressions in package metadata, but I think there the complexity is justified. What it actually *means* for an intermediary to distribute upstream code under the upstream choice of licenses, with conditions that might simultaneously apply to that intermediary on either side of the disjunct, I'm not entirely sure, but in all normal practical scenarios it never really matters -- which is another reason for the "pass the choice on" practice. I'd rather copy the practices of upstream community projects than the practices of GPL-phobic companies downstream, basically.

On 1/4/22 9:27 AM, David Cantrell wrote: >On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:46:44AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: >>On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:22 AM Miroslav Suchý &gt;&gt;&lt;msuchy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>I want to clarify one thing I am working on. When I have this >>>string in License tag in spec: >>> >>>    Good License or Bad license >>> >>>Then the result is Good license and the package is allowed to be >>>in Fedora, right? >> >>So first of all if I change your question to be about the actual >>underlying license terms of the package as opposed to the >>representation in the spec file, I believe the answer must be "yes" >>and there are probably a lot of examples of this in Fedora. (Think of >>any arbitrary package that says it's under some FOSS license and also >>says informally that proprietary licenses are also available.) >> >>With the spec file, though, I believe there is an inconsistency in how >>Fedora deals with this, but this is just a casual impression. On the >>one hand, there is the common case of traditionally-licensed Perl >>modules (typically, a dual license involving unversioned GPL and a >>license identified as the Artistic License 1.0 [which I realize exists >>in multiple forms, but let's ignore that]). Fedora spec files for such >>Perl module packages generally say something like "GPL or Artistic", >>even though Fedora classifies the Artistic License as a "bad" license. >>I *think* there may be other examples, not involving Perl modules or >>the Artistic License, where the code is dual licensed under a good >>license and a bad license and the spec file only gives the good >>license. The only rationale I could come up with for the difference in >>approach is that the Artistic License, while "bad" from Fedora's >>perspective, is generally seen as plausibly-FOSS (it's an OSI-approved >>license, for one thing). >> >>I think it comes down to whether Fedora wants to have spec files that >>say, for example, "GPL or Proprietary" much as it has spec files that >>say "GPL or Artistic". > >It's true there is inconsistency regarding the License tag in the spec >file.  As the package maintainer and as part of the Fedora project, I >would prefer that the License tag in the spec reflect the license >terms that we are distributing the built package against.  So in the >case of Perl modules that are generally GPL or Artistic, the Fedora >project is really redistributing them under the terms of the GPL only, >right? I think the answer to the inconsistency here is to set a policy relating to disjunctive licensed packages and then document that in the packaging guidelines. This would provide clarity for both package maintainers as well as downstream recipients. My recommendation would be that in the case where (random example): The package license upstream is: AGPL-3.0-or-later OR SSPL-1.0 and where Fedora would not allow SSPL-1.0, then the License field in the spec file would simply indicate: AGPL-3.0-or-later If one really wants to be thorough and there is some kind of comment field in the Spec file (I think I've seen this?), then one could note something along the lines of "This package is licensed upstream as AGPL-3.0-or-later OR SSPL-1.0"

>Does it follow that we [Fedora] take an open source project that is >dual licensed and use the license that is acceptable in our project >and redistribute under those terms?  Is that even a thing one can do? >Given the "or" usage, my assumption is yes.  The author is giving the >downstream user the choice of using that work under the terms of the >GPL or the terms of the Artistic license.  In the case of Fedora, >we've deemed Artistic undesirable which means our use of the modules >is technically under the terms of the GPL. Correct. > >For me, I would prefer to see this reflected in the License tags in >spec files so we can see how we're integrating components in to >Fedora.  If we note a license that we can't use or that we are not >using, it makes it harder to see at a glance _what_ terms actually >apply to that component.  And that makes it harder for other packagers >looking for license-compatible dependencies. Agreed. > >I realize this is yet another work project and also that I may be >incorrect regarding what we can and can't do with regard to >dual-licensed projects.  If we are unable to say "we're using the Perl >modules under the terms of the GPL" and exclude the Artistic license, >then really the "or" boolean doesn't apply and it's really always >"and". I think you mean that there would not be a need for the "OR" operator in Fedora, but there are open source projects that may be licensed under a choice of two "good" Fedora licenses, in which case, it would make sense to simply pass downstream the choice of both, I would think.

> >So many licenses, so many questions.... :) Jilayne

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:49 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > So, I have just made another commit to the license packaging guidelines to update the sections on dual-licensing, multiple licenses and use of "with" for license exception over here: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1142 > > In light of this thread, I'd suggest we update the first sentence of the Dual Licensing section to say, "If your package is dual licensed under a choice of two (or three, etc.) licenses and both licenses are "good" for Fedora, the License: field must reflect this by using "OR" as a separator. "

> and add the following to the Dual Licensing section: > > "If your package is licensed under a choice of two licenses and one is a "good" license and one is a "bad" license, then the License: field must reflect the "good" license only contain a comment explaining the original choice.

> > Example: Package dbfoo is dual licensed under Affero General Public License v3 or Server Side Public License and Fedora considers the Server Side Public License as "bad". Note the choice in a comment above the License: field and the License field as follows: > > # The upstream package license is: AGPL-3.0-or-later OR SSPL-1.0 > License: AGPL-3.0-or-later I don't think this is a good idea. Obviously if a packager wants to put in such a comment they can, but I don't think this should be required or even recommended for the following reasons:

First, it arguably creates more work for the packager to analyze licenses. Maybe in some cases this is work that the packager would be doing already, I realize. (For example, encountering SSPL-1.0, in your hypothetical, and verifying that it actually is a match to SPDX SSPL-1.0.)

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:22 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > I think a few things got lost in translation - let me clarify. I also > just went back and read this entire thread again, as I was only trying > to reflect the things stated as either status quo (to then explicitly > document) or clarification on things where there is sort of a status quo > but may be some inconsistency (to take away inconsistency or questions > for package maintainers). :) > > On 1/11/22 9:17 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:49 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> So, I have just made another commit to the license packaging guidelines to update the sections on dual-licensing, multiple licenses and use of "with" for license exception over here: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1142 >>> >>> In light of this thread, I'd suggest we update the first sentence of the Dual Licensing section to say, "If your package is dual licensed under a choice of two (or three, etc.) licenses and both licenses are "good" for Fedora, the License: field must reflect this by using "OR" as a separator. " > Note - this is a slight amendment to the current guidelines under the > Dual Licensing section to explicitly state that if both licenses are > "good" to pass along the choice which it seemed everyone on the thread > agreed should be the case and is the common practice. >>> and add the following to the Dual Licensing section: >>> >>> "If your package is licensed under a choice of two licenses and one is a "good" license and one is a "bad" license, then the License: field must reflect the "good" license only contain a comment explaining the original choice. > Note - the Multiple Licensing Scenarios - > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel... > in the packaging guidelines requires a comment for these scenarios and > gives some examples. So, I thought it would be consistent to use a > similar approach in the "Good or Bad" dual licensing section and copied > one of the examples of how to comment. >>> Example: Package dbfoo is dual licensed under Affero General Public License v3 or Server Side Public License and Fedora considers the Server Side Public License as "bad". Note the choice in a comment above the License: field and the License field as follows: >>> >>> # The upstream package license is: AGPL-3.0-or-later OR SSPL-1.0 >>> License: AGPL-3.0-or-later >> I don't think this is a good idea. Obviously if a packager wants to >> put in such a comment they can, but I don't think this should be >> required or even recommended for the following reasons: > See comment above >> First, it arguably creates more work for the packager to analyze >> licenses. Maybe in some cases this is work that the packager would be >> doing already, I realize. (For example, encountering SSPL-1.0, in your >> hypothetical, and verifying that it actually is a match to SPDX >> SSPL-1.0.) > I did not mean to imply that SPDX identifiers had to be used in the > comment whatsoever, so we can simply change the example to something > like the following (which would be consistent with other examples in the > Multiple Licensing Scenarios examples): > > # The upstream package license is: Affero General Public License v3 or > later or Server Side Public License > License: AGPL-3.0-or-later > > or we could add another example like: > > # The upstream package license is: GNU General Public License v2 or > later or a commercial license > License: GPL-2.0-or-later OK, so as to these examples -- I don't like the AGPL|SSPL one because it's not realistic (I don't believe it is known to have occurred in the real world, unlike the GPL|Artistic cases and so forth). For the other example: If you change "commercial license" to "proprietary license" (there's a long history of semi-justifiable objections to the term "commercial license" as an antonym to open source/free software license in FOSS), the problem here is that it too is not necessarily a real world case of the sort we're talking about here. It is pretty common for purportedly-single-licensor GPL projects to say informally something like "If you find the GPL problematic, you can write to me for an alternative commercial [yes, they might say commercial] license". But historically Fedora has just paid no attention to that sort of statement for licensing purposes -- it's just background noise. (More worrisome might be such a statement coupled with a reinterpretation of the GPL, e.g. "If you want to use this project commercially, contact me for alternative licensing options". But this doesn't go to the problem of license description in the spec file at all, but rather whether the license is "really" the GPL.) What we don't usually see is a project repository where you have LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.PROPRIETARY, in a context suggesting that the operative terms are a disjunctive dual license consisting of the two. I believe this is sufficiently uncommon that we shouldn't worry about this case. To put it another way, I can't think of any real-world disjunctive dual license involving a (likely) "bad" license other than the Perl module case (where of course it is really common). If it's so unusual, why should the guidelines address it at all? Or if the only likely example is the Perl one, then the guidelines should only use the Perl (GPL/Artistic) example. > I think we could also add the word "known" to the guideline so it reads: > > "If your package is licensed under a _known_ choice of two licenses and one is a "good" license and one is a "bad" license, then the License: field must reflect the "good" license only contain a comment explaining the original choice." So thinking more about this, I think if we say anything about this, it should be specific to the Perl case, until someone encounters a counterexample. We could say: " If your package is licensed under a known choice of two licenses and one is a "good" license and one is a "bad" license, then the License: field must reflect the "good" license only. This is highly uncommon in Fedora packages apart from the case of Perl modules dual licensed under the GPL and the Artistic License 1.0. In that case you must pick the appropriate identifier for the GPL side (which in Perl modules will typically map to SPDX "GPL-1.0-or-later"). You are encouraged to include a comment memorializing this, for example: # Upstream project is dual licensed GPL | Artistic 1.0 " (I can explain why I don't think SPDX identifiers should be used in the example comment.) However, I don't see why we should go to all this trouble if it is reasonably likely that in the one case where this problem is known to occur it might go away by revisiting Fedora's classification of the Artistic License 1.0 (in its various forms) as "bad". > Other posts on the mailing thread suggested a more complex notation in the actual License field, but that seems to risk breaking some checks or something (see David's response) and then runs into the problem you expressed re: using SPDX identifiers in the License: field. But if it's merely a comment, it's more flexible and yet the info if there for anyone who cares downstream or is wondering why the License field reflects just the one license and not the choice. One thing that bothers me is, this is creating a new requirement that didn't exist before. It didn't exist in the Perl module case because Perl modules got "special treatment". The question is, who cares downstream? I don't think this matters to Red Hat, to take one Fedora downstream. I would be interested in knowing whether there are Fedora community members (including folks who might be at Red Hat) who would like there to be a requirement that spec files document probably-rare (outside of the Perl module case) situations where, by application of Fedora policy, an upstream dual license disjunct is not selected. If anyone is really that interested they should be analyzing the source code. The source code of these packages will in most cases I can imagine still have all the information about the upstream dual license. For example, under the new rule, a Fedora Perl module package might have "License: GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0", but the source tarball in the source RPM, at least, will have a copy of the Artistic license or source file license notices that state the dual license or however the dual license is indicated upstream (let's ignore the actual common usage of the horrible "Licensed under the same terms as Perl itself"). So to the really curious person no information is lost. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the "bad" license in these cases should be stripped out. > Documenting this explicitly also sets expectations downstream as well that Fedora is not going to pass along the option to redistribute a package under a license considered "bad" by Fedora. We're already basically saying this -- even today, the only thing that is confusing is the "special treatment" given to Perl modules. It just doesn't seem important enough to mandate a new requirement. I just think these guidelines need to spring from and relate to real world scenarios. I forget whether I said this in this thread, but if we require documentation for this case, why don't we require it for all cases in which the packager makes some simplification or reduction in complexity of the license expression. I am not sure we want to mandate that, though we might want to encourage it. My impression is very few spec files today contain comments of that sort. 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

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 8:56 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > With my packagers hat on, I'd like this to be as simple as me (or some > scanner) going through the code and listing all the licenses which are > then put into `License` tag. The rest can handle automation, e.g. are > these licenses good and in right combination, what is effective Fedora > license. I am not sure why I, as a packager, should be involved in > decision if Artistic should be listed somewhere or not.

> > BTW reducing the license list or identifying good/bad licenses is much > easier task then identifying the licenses in the source code. If we > mostly trust the scanners today, then we should leave the remaining > decisions to automation as well, because these are much simpler task > then license identification. This is a very important issue which I think we need to tackle somehow. Jilayne has started this in her pull request by including a section providing guidance on how to determine the license applicable to a package,

but I think this is sufficiently difficult and complex and contentious that I believe it should be addressed in a separate document which will require a lot of work to develop.

Part of this is figuring out what we want the identifiers to signify and how much deviation from reality we want to tolerate. We really ought to start out figuring out this question and only then develop practical guidelines around it. For example, existing Fedora guidance indicates that the License: tag should reflect the license of the appropriate binary (a very interesting convention which I've often thought is beneficial), which among other things implies that merely scanning source code will sometimes give "incorrect" results even if the scanner is somehow perfect.

Do we trust scanning tools? There are some tools (FOSS of course) I have some relatively decent confidence in as far as scanners go (ScanCode and FOSSology) although the only one I really ever used directly was ScanCode. Even ScanCode gets lots of things wrong, has spurious or unhelpful results, etc., and doesn't necessarily produce something easily translatable or representable as a compact SPDX expression. ScanCode is also not great at detecting bespoke likely-non-FOSS license texts.

We certainly could adopt a rule that the License: tag should be an SPDX expression representation of the "output of ScanCode" (configured in some particular way, say), despite the resultant inclusion of inaccurate or misleading information. (Inside Red Hat, we thought about this in a non-Fedora context.) We could dispense with the rules that make this difficult (such as the "binary license" rule). The resulting license tags would look a lot ... stranger than the ones Fedora has today, and would be in some ways less meaningful, but maybe that's okay. But I don't think even if we did this it would remove the need for the packager to do some level of analysis. How much analysis is desirable is a big question. Minimizing burdens on people doing packaging has to be an important consideration no matter where we end up.

Richard > > Vít > > > Dne 13. 01. 22 v 4:37 Richard Fontana napsal(a): >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:22 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> I think a few things got lost in translation - let me clarify. I also >>> just went back and read this entire thread again, as I was only trying >>> to reflect the things stated as either status quo (to then explicitly >>> document) or clarification on things where there is sort of a status quo >>> but may be some inconsistency (to take away inconsistency or questions >>> for package maintainers). :) >>> >>> On 1/11/22 9:17 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:49 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> So, I have just made another commit to the license packaging guidelines to update the sections on dual-licensing, multiple licenses and use of "with" for license exception over here: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1142 >>>>> >>>>> In light of this thread, I'd suggest we update the first sentence of the Dual Licensing section to say, "If your package is dual licensed under a choice of two (or three, etc.) licenses and both licenses are "good" for Fedora, the License: field must reflect this by using "OR" as a separator. " >>> Note - this is a slight amendment to the current guidelines under the >>> Dual Licensing section to explicitly state that if both licenses are >>> "good" to pass along the choice which it seemed everyone on the thread >>> agreed should be the case and is the common practice. >>>>> and add the following to the Dual Licensing section: >>>>> >>>>> "If your package is licensed under a choice of two licenses and one is a "good" license and one is a "bad" license, then the License: field must reflect the "good" license only contain a comment explaining the original choice. >>> Note - the Multiple Licensing Scenarios - >>> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel... >>> in the packaging guidelines requires a comment for these scenarios and >>> gives some examples. So, I thought it would be consistent to use a >>> similar approach in the "Good or Bad" dual licensing section and copied >>> one of the examples of how to comment. >>>>> Example: Package dbfoo is dual licensed under Affero General Public License v3 or Server Side Public License and Fedora considers the Server Side Public License as "bad". Note the choice in a comment above the License: field and the License field as follows: >>>>> >>>>> # The upstream package license is: AGPL-3.0-or-later OR SSPL-1.0 >>>>> License: AGPL-3.0-or-later >>>> I don't think this is a good idea. Obviously if a packager wants to >>>> put in such a comment they can, but I don't think this should be >>>> required or even recommended for the following reasons: >>> See comment above >>>> First, it arguably creates more work for the packager to analyze >>>> licenses. Maybe in some cases this is work that the packager would be >>>> doing already, I realize. (For example, encountering SSPL-1.0, in your >>>> hypothetical, and verifying that it actually is a match to SPDX >>>> SSPL-1.0.) >>> I did not mean to imply that SPDX identifiers had to be used in the >>> comment whatsoever, so we can simply change the example to something >>> like the following (which would be consistent with other examples in the >>> Multiple Licensing Scenarios examples): >>> >>> # The upstream package license is: Affero General Public License v3 or >>> later or Server Side Public License >>> License: AGPL-3.0-or-later >>> >>> or we could add another example like: >>> >>> # The upstream package license is: GNU General Public License v2 or >>> later or a commercial license >>> License: GPL-2.0-or-later >> OK, so as to these examples -- I don't like the AGPL|SSPL one because >> it's not realistic (I don't believe it is known to have occurred in >> the real world, unlike the GPL|Artistic cases and so forth). >> >> For the other example: If you change "commercial license" to >> "proprietary license" (there's a long history of semi-justifiable >> objections to the term "commercial license" as an antonym to open >> source/free software license in FOSS), the problem here is that it too >> is not necessarily a real world case of the sort we're talking about >> here. It is pretty common for purportedly-single-licensor GPL projects >> to say informally something like "If you find the GPL problematic, you >> can write to me for an alternative commercial [yes, they might say >> commercial] license". But historically Fedora has just paid no >> attention to that sort of statement for licensing purposes -- it's >> just background noise. (More worrisome might be such a statement >> coupled with a reinterpretation of the GPL, e.g. "If you want to use >> this project commercially, contact me for alternative licensing >> options". But this doesn't go to the problem of license description in >> the spec file at all, but rather whether the license is "really" the >> GPL.) >> >> What we don't usually see is a project repository where you have >> LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.PROPRIETARY, in a context suggesting that the >> operative terms are a disjunctive dual license consisting of the two. >> I believe this is sufficiently uncommon that we shouldn't worry about >> this case. >> >> To put it another way, I can't think of any real-world disjunctive >> dual license involving a (likely) "bad" license other than the Perl >> module case (where of course it is really common). If it's so unusual, >> why should the guidelines address it at all? Or if the only likely >> example is the Perl one, then the guidelines should only use the Perl >> (GPL/Artistic) example. >> >>> I think we could also add the word "known" to the guideline so it reads: >>> >>> "If your package is licensed under a _known_ choice of two licenses and one is a "good" license and one is a "bad" license, then the License: field must reflect the "good" license only contain a comment explaining the original choice." >> So thinking more about this, I think if we say anything about this, it >> should be specific to the Perl case, until someone encounters a >> counterexample. >> >> We could say: >> >> " >> If your package is licensed under a known choice of two licenses and >> one is a "good" license and one is a "bad" license, then the License: >> field must reflect the "good" license only. This is highly uncommon in >> Fedora packages apart from the case of Perl modules dual licensed >> under the GPL and the Artistic License 1.0. In that case you must pick >> the appropriate identifier for the GPL side (which in Perl modules >> will typically map to SPDX "GPL-1.0-or-later"). You are encouraged to >> include a comment memorializing this, for example: >> # Upstream project is dual licensed GPL | Artistic 1.0 >> " >> (I can explain why I don't think SPDX identifiers should be used in >> the example comment.) >> >> However, I don't see why we should go to all this trouble if it is >> reasonably likely that in the one case where this problem is known to >> occur it might go away by revisiting Fedora's classification of the >> Artistic License 1.0 (in its various forms) as "bad". >> >>> Other posts on the mailing thread suggested a more complex notation in the actual License field, but that seems to risk breaking some checks or something (see David's response) and then runs into the problem you expressed re: using SPDX identifiers in the License: field. But if it's merely a comment, it's more flexible and yet the info if there for anyone who cares downstream or is wondering why the License field reflects just the one license and not the choice. >> One thing that bothers me is, this is creating a new requirement that >> didn't exist before. It didn't exist in the Perl module case because >> Perl modules got "special treatment". >> >> The question is, who cares downstream? I don't think this matters to >> Red Hat, to take one Fedora downstream. I would be interested in >> knowing whether there are Fedora community members (including folks >> who might be at Red Hat) who would like there to be a requirement that >> spec files document probably-rare (outside of the Perl module case) >> situations where, by application of Fedora policy, an upstream dual >> license disjunct is not selected. If anyone is really that interested >> they should be analyzing the source code. >> >> The source code of these packages will in most cases I can imagine >> still have all the information about the upstream dual license. For >> example, under the new rule, a Fedora Perl module package might have >> "License: GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0", but the source tarball in >> the source RPM, at least, will have a copy of the Artistic license or >> source file license notices that state the dual license or however the >> dual license is indicated upstream (let's ignore the actual common >> usage of the horrible "Licensed under the same terms as Perl itself"). >> So to the really curious person no information is lost. I don't think >> anyone has ever suggested that the "bad" license in these cases should >> be stripped out. >> >>> Documenting this explicitly also sets expectations downstream as well that Fedora is not going to pass along the option to redistribute a package under a license considered "bad" by Fedora. >> We're already basically saying this -- even today, the only thing >> that is confusing is the "special treatment" given to Perl modules. It >> just doesn't seem important enough to mandate a new requirement. I >> just think these guidelines need to spring from and relate to real >> world scenarios. >> >> I forget whether I said this in this thread, but if we require >> documentation for this case, why don't we require it for all cases in >> which the packager makes some simplification or reduction in >> complexity of the license expression. I am not sure we want to mandate >> that, though we might want to encourage it. My impression is very few >> spec files today contain comments of that sort. >> >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- _______________________________________________ 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

On 1/13/22 2:59 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 8:56 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> With my packagers hat on, I'd like this to be as simple as me (or some >> scanner) going through the code and listing all the licenses which are >> then put into `License` tag. The rest can handle automation, e.g. are >> these licenses good and in right combination, what is effective Fedora >> license. I am not sure why I, as a packager, should be involved in >> decision if Artistic should be listed somewhere or not. so, are you saying you'd like to use a license scanner (e.g., ScanCode or FOSSology) to scan a proposed new package for Fedora and then have those results checked against the "good" list and then generate the License tag? This sounds like something that would require some additional tooling to be written to take the FOSSology results and compare them against the Fedora-license data, right?

well, as Miroslav began this thread asking about the scenario of having a Good or Bad license (and didn't seem to indicate it was specifically the Perl example - I assumed Fedora packagers are coming across such scenarios.

> However, I don't see why we should go to all this trouble if it is > reasonably likely that in the one case where this problem is known to > occur it might go away by revisiting Fedora's classification of the > Artistic License 1.0 (in its various forms) as "bad". It was a question on this mailing list that started this thread and there was some support to documenting the answer to the question. At a minimum, stating explicitly that where one has a "Good or Good" - the License: field should capture that and if it's "Good or Bad" the License field should include only the Good license. That seemed to be common practice by all I could deduce from the entire thread. I can't see how at least capturing that is controversial?

On 1/13/22 3:33 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 6:00 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > >> well, as Miroslav began this thread asking about the scenario of having >> a Good or Bad license (and didn't seem to indicate it was specifically >> the Perl example - I assumed Fedora packagers are coming across such >> scenarios. > I guess I don't really know for sure. My intuition is that it's not > going to be common because while disjunctive dual (and triple, etc.) > licenses are common in FOSS projects usually all the licenses are > clearly FOSS. In the Fedora context I don't think I know of a good|bad > example other than the GPL/Artistic cases. A team at Red Hat has been > using ScanCode to scan RHEL packages and I see the results of these; I > think there may have been one or two "good|bad" cases outside the Perl > module cases. So I think it's probably really rare. Fair enough. I was hoping Miroslav might enlighten us with the context of what prompted his question to begin with, but at this point our banter may have bored everyone else to tears ;-p > > (Conjunctive multiple licenses -- "Good AND Bad" -- is going to be a > much more common situation.) > >>> However, I don't see why we should go to all this trouble if it is >>> reasonably likely that in the one case where this problem is known to >>> occur it might go away by revisiting Fedora's classification of the >>> Artistic License 1.0 (in its various forms) as "bad". >> It was a question on this mailing list that started this thread and >> there was some support to documenting the answer to the question. >> At a minimum, stating explicitly that where one has a "Good or Good" - >> the License: field should capture that and if it's "Good or Bad" the >> License field should include only the Good license. That seemed to be >> common practice by all I could deduce from the entire thread. I can't >> see how at least capturing that is controversial? > I totally agree with the suggestion that "Good or Bad" should be > represented in the license tag as just "Good". Sorry if it seemed I > was saying otherwise. The only thing I'm really objecting to is > imposing a new commenting requirement that didn't exist before (I > think especially if the triggering event is going to be really > uncommon). > Gotcha. Here's where I think we've ended up in terms of proposing some revised text for the package guidelines, let me know if you agree and would be good to get some package maintainers input as well! *** Dual Licensing Scenarios If your package is  licensed under a choice of two (or three, etc.) licenses and both licenses are "good" for Fedora, the License: field must reflect this by using "OR" as a separator. Note that this only applies when the contents of the package are actually under a dual license, and not when the package contains items under multiple, distinct, and independent licenses. Example: Package libfoo is dual licensed as Mozilla Public License v1.1 and GNU General Public License v2 or later. The package spec must have: License: MPL-1.1 OR GPL-2.0-or-later If your package is licensed under a known choice of two licenses and one is a "good" license and one is a "bad" license, then the License: field must reflect the "good" license only.

You are encouraged to include a comment memorializing the upstream licensing choice. *** I took out the example altogether. At this point, I'm thinking it's not really necessary? Jilayne _______________________________________________ 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 14. 01. 22 v 0:00 Jilayne Lovejoy napsal(a): >> >> To put it another way, I can't think of any real-world disjunctive >> dual license involving a (likely) "bad" license other than the Perl >> module case (where of course it is really common). If it's so unusual, >> why should the guidelines address it at all? Or if the only likely >> example is the Perl one, then the guidelines should only use the Perl >> (GPL/Artistic) example. > well, as Miroslav began this thread asking about the scenario of > having a Good or Bad license (and didn't seem to indicate it was > specifically the Perl example - I assumed Fedora packagers are coming > across such scenarios Nope. From me this was completely theoretical question. Just to make the algorithm complete. The full scan of all spec does not found any such case.

Miroslav _______________________________________________ legal mailing list --legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-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.fedora... Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure