From rfontana at redhat.com Thu Nov 4 16:30:34 2021 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5170698772934483486==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Richard Fontana To: legal at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: website blurb about licensing of iso downloads Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 12:30:16 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: CAC1cPGxodLmhBtZ08R13Nrh8k46=vEiWAzUyswf7bzUn2aHhrA@mail.gmail.com --===============5170698772934483486== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 12:27 PM Richard Fontana wro= te: > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 12:09 PM Jilayne Lovejoy w= rote: > > > > > > > > On 11/4/21 1:46 AM, Zbigniew J=C4=99drzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 07:44:43AM +0000, Zbigniew J=C4=99drzejewski-= Szmek wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> [see https://pagure.io/fedora-web/websites/issue/215 for the origina= l issue] > > >> > > >> I hope that this is the right venue for this question/review request: > > >> https://getfedora.org/ currently says > > >>> Fedora is always free for anyone to use, modify, and distribute. > > >>> It is built and used by people across the globe who work together a= s a community. > > >> There is a pull request open to amend the text to include: > > >> > > >> {% trans trimmed %}It is a compilation of software packages, > > >> each under its own license. Images that can be downloaded here are > > >> available under the combination of licenses of the constituent > > >> software packages and the license of the Fedora project itself. > > >> View License{% endtrans %} > > > This^ is https://pagure.io/fedora-web/websites/pull-request/218#reque= st_diff > > looking at the PR and the website page itself - do I understand > > correctly that this is essentially adding a line to the blurb at the > > last section (before the footer banner) of this page - > > https://getfedora.org/ - next to the gray/white globe graphic? > > > > Just trying to visualize the end result. > > I think so. Seems to be associated with this issue: > https://pagure.io/fedora-web/websites/issue/215 > > I'm not sure why it's that important to say this, but I guess it's > mostly worded okay, except that "the license of the Fedora project > itself" should be reworded since there is no license of the Fedora > project itself (in my view, anyway). There is a collective work > license -- the MIT license -- but I don't see that much value in > placing any emphasis on that. But if that is going to be referred to, > it should be "the license of the Fedora distribution itself", not the > more ambiguous "the license of the Fedora project itself". Or maybe "the license of the Fedora Linux distribution itself" (if I recall correctly there's been some effort to refer to the distribution as "Fedora Linux"). Richard --===============5170698772934483486==--