On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 5:07 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 3:34 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Python PEPs are licensed as:
>
> > This document is placed in the public domain or under the CC0-1.0-Universal
> > license, whichever is more permissive.
>
> How do I express this statement in a license field of a Fedora package, if the
> package includes a copy of the PEP text?
>
> Do I use:
>
> License: CC0-1.0
>
> because "Public Domain" is discouraged?
>
> Or do I use:
>
> License: LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain
>
> because Public Domain is more permissive?
>
> Or do I use:
>
> License: LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR CC0-1.0
>
> because the "whichever is more permissive" clause is to be determined by
> whoever wants to distribute/modify this and not by me?
>
> Or do I use something different entirely?
Offhand, I'm not sure - please submit an issue for fedora-license-data
as though it were a new license, since the answer might be that we
should treat this as a single license. The thing that's very odd is
the "whichever is more permissive" since it's hard to see how anyone
could really determine that. I wonder if it should be taken as a
normal disjunctive dual license, just badly phrased.
> Now suppose I have *a script* licensed like this. Do I make different choices
> because CC0-1.0 is not allowed for code?
Possibly.
I think the Fedora perspective ought to be that CC0 *is* less
permissive than traditional public domain dedications.
For those who are curious, here's the origin of this odd form of licensing: :)
https://github.com/python/peps/issues/123#issuecomment-508236985
Richard