Hi,
Regarding the message about the Fedora-logo and the spec file license field containing "Licensed only for approved usage, see COPYING for details”
Can you point me to the actual text of the license?
Generally speaking, if you wish to submit a license to the SPDX License List, you can do so here - https://tools.spdx.org/app/submit_new_license/ or directly in the Github repo (with the same info, see https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/request-new-licens... ) - that way you get a direct and accurate answer :)
The license inclusion guidelines for the SPDX License List can be found here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion-... - but as Richard already pointed out, usage in a major distro combined with the license meeting something like Fedora’s free/open criteria makes for a very strong candidate.
Thanks, Jilayne
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 09:19:16PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote:
Regarding the message about the Fedora-logo and the spec file license field containing "Licensed only for approved usage, see COPYING for details”
Can you point me to the actual text of the license?
/usr/share/licenses/fedora-logos/COPYING on an installed Fedora system. It is this: https://pagure.io/fedora-logos/blob/master/f/COPYING
This is probably a rabbit hole of giant proportions. :)
Hello all.
By the way, it's a shame that Fedora logos are non-free and can't even be distributed by third-party projects.
For example, Simple icons library recently removed Fedora icons due to a license infringement:
- https://github.com/simple-icons/simple-icons/issues/5540#issuecomment-828502... - https://github.com/simple-icons/simple-icons/pull/6892
I think, Fedora Project should revise Fedora logos licenses and allow their usage.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 11:09 AM Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org wrote:
Hello all.
By the way, it's a shame that Fedora logos are non-free and can't even be distributed by third-party projects.
For example, Simple icons library recently removed Fedora icons due to a license infringement:
https://github.com/simple-icons/simple-icons/issues/5540#issuecomment-828502...
I think, Fedora Project should revise Fedora logos licenses and allow their usage.
The council has already fixed the problems with logo fonts ( https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/386), and it is being included in Simple icons again ( https://github.com/simple-icons/simple-icons/pull/5610). As for why this license exists, I would guess it is related to trademark rights and keeping the trademark alive, and so it is not easy to release it completely under a free license.
-Ian
-- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vitaly@easycoding.org) _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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 11:19 PM J Lovejoy opensource@jilayne.com wrote:
The license inclusion guidelines for the SPDX License List can be found here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion-... - but as Richard already pointed out, usage in a major distro combined with the license meeting something like Fedora’s free/open criteria makes for a very strong candidate.
In the case of the fedora-logos license, the license does not meet Fedora's free/open criteria. I'm not sure if the license can be seen as meeting the current criteria for content licenses or, as I would have thought, is understood to be exceptional because of the special nature of the package (see: "The one exception is that we permit content (but only content) which restricts modification as long as that is the only restriction." https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses_3).
Richard