On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 12:27 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 12:09 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/4/21 1:46 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 07:44:43AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 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:
> >>
> >> <small>{% 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.
> >> <a
href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Licenses/LicenseAgreement...
License</a>{% endtrans %}</small>
> > 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".
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