* Fedora and its distributors comply with the licensing terms, but the license is not obviously on Fedora's allowed list. An example would be an obscure field-of-use restriction (as in the JSON license).

On 12/19/22 3:10 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 19. 12. 22 v 12:18 Florian Weimer napsal(a): >> * Fedora and its distributors comply with the licensing terms, but the >>    license is not obviously on Fedora's allowed list.  An example would >>    be an obscure field-of-use restriction (as in the JSON license). > > Create an issue in https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/ > > And the license may be added to not-allowed list. See > https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/?sort=create... > > And in that issue you can discuss what to do with the package if it > already in Fedora Linux. the process for license review is outlined at this particular link: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-review-process/ :)

On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 3:19 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > * Jilayne Lovejoy: > >> On 12/19/22 3:10 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: >>> Dne 19. 12. 22 v 12:18 Florian Weimer napsal(a): >>>> * Fedora and its distributors comply with the licensing terms, but the >>>> license is not obviously on Fedora's allowed list. An example would >>>> be an obscure field-of-use restriction (as in the JSON license). >>> Create an issue in https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/ >>> >>> And the license may be added to not-allowed list. See >>> https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/?sort=create... >>> >>> And in that issue you can discuss what to do with the package if it >>> already in Fedora Linux. >> the process for license review is outlined at this particular link: >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-review-process/ >> >> :) > Thanks. I'll keep filing fedora-license-data issues until told > otherwise. I think we can make that documentation a little clearer that the license review process can be initiated by any interested Fedora contributor (not just actual/intended package maintainers), for existing as well as proposed new Fedora packages. What we don't want is for it to be used for substantially non-Fedora-related purposes (e.g. a license for which review is sought should demonstrably exist in an existing Fedora package or a project that (but for any license issues) seems likely to be included in Fedora). Richard

On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 3:04 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On 1/2/23 10:57 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 3:19 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> * Jilayne Lovejoy: >>> >>>> On 12/19/22 3:10 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: >>>>> Dne 19. 12. 22 v 12:18 Florian Weimer napsal(a): >>>>>> * Fedora and its distributors comply with the licensing terms, but the >>>>>> license is not obviously on Fedora's allowed list. An example would >>>>>> be an obscure field-of-use restriction (as in the JSON license). >>>>> Create an issue in https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/ >>>>> >>>>> And the license may be added to not-allowed list. See >>>>> https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/?sort=create... >>>>> >>>>> And in that issue you can discuss what to do with the package if it >>>>> already in Fedora Linux. >>>> the process for license review is outlined at this particular link: >>>> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-review-process/ >>>> >>>> :) >>> Thanks. I'll keep filing fedora-license-data issues until told >>> otherwise. >> I think we can make that documentation a little clearer that the >> license review process can be initiated by any interested Fedora >> contributor (not just actual/intended package maintainers), for >> existing as well as proposed new Fedora packages. What we don't want >> is for it to be used for substantially non-Fedora-related purposes >> (e.g. a license for which review is sought should demonstrably exist >> in an existing Fedora package or a project that (but for any license >> issues) seems likely to be included in Fedora). >> >> Richard >> > I just had a re-read and it doesn't say anything specific to "package > maintainers" but I think uses "Fedora contributors" initially, which > should cover your point. I think it's clear it should be for a package > included in Fedora, but we don't have an explicit statement to NOT use > it for non-Fedora related purposes - do you think we should add that? > > I did fix a bit of formatting just now, though :) Also re-reading - I guess the only thing that's unclear is the initial text: "This page describes how to request the review of *a new license for inclusion in Fedora Linux* and other related processes. [...] "Request review of a new license" [...] While the following text makes things clear, I think there is something confusing about the phrase "new license" -- someone might assume that doesn't cover "licenses Fedora has arguably been distributing code/content under for 20 years", for example.

Separately, but related to Florian's question, I think we should make clear in documentation (if we don't already) that fedora-license-data is not intended to deal with questions about license compliance, except to the extent that impossibility or impracticality of compliance with a license may be a reason for concluding that it is not allowed.

Richard

What's the best way to raise licensing issues in already-added packages? I think there are largely two cases: * Fedora and its distributors comply with the licensing terms, but the license is not obviously on Fedora's allowed list. An example would be an obscure field-of-use restriction (as in the JSON license).

* Fedora and its distributors appear violating the license. An example would be a package that ships a pre-built Linux kernel binary without the required GPL notices, and without corresponding soruce code.

Do these two cases need to be treated differently? In the past, I may have filed bugs in Bugzilla, but this might be construed as a bit rude.

I looked at <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/> and couldn't find any discussion of this topic. Sorry if I missed it.