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> 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 :)
J.