From rfontana at redhat.com Thu Nov 4 16:29:16 2021 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1247549110495122449==" 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 12:27:56 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: 2a562a9e-50d3-38b9-2bbf-8354549e36a4@redhat.com --===============1247549110495122449== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 12:09 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wro= te: > > > > 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-Sz= mek wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> [see https://pagure.io/fedora-web/websites/issue/215 for the original = 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 as = 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#request= _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". Richard --===============1247549110495122449==--