On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 05:18:48PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 5:08 PM Jilayne Lovejoy
> On 3/3/22 2:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
> >> Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the
> >> documentation - what are your thoughts on this?
> > I like the idea of moving to 'approved' vs 'not approved' in
> > think most people looking at that list will be looking in the context of
> > packaging for Fedora and will just want to know if it's approved or not.
> > That said, I think Neil makes a good point about people choosing
> > licenses. Would it make sense to have 'approved' and 'not
> > 'reccomended' ? :) Of course then recommended would be subjective, but
> > perhaps thats ok. This would just be a smaller subset of licenses that
> > are not only approved, but encouraged by the project.
> That's an interesting idea - are you thinking this would be in the
> context of: "If you are creating or considering a license for a package
> that you want included in Fedora, here is a list of recommended licenses
> to use" ? (which I suppose implicitly says, use an approved/good one,
> but don't just pick any old approved/good one, please)
Yeah... More like "If you are starting an open source project and plan
to package it for Fedora, here's a list of what we consider the "best"
licenses to use.
Historically I think Fedora had some informal standards around
Fedora-specific projects (not Fedora packages, but projects that are
in some sense part of the larger Fedora project) but I am not sure
this has ever really been documented. Most Fedora projects seem to use
There have been some standards around applications/packages written for
but of course thats changed somewhat in recent years with the Fedora
Council saying it was ok to use non free infrastructure if needed.
GPLv2, the MIT license, LGPLv2.1, perhaps GPLv3 to some degree. I
don't see a compelling need for Fedora to start making recommendations
for *Fedora* projects since this has seemed to work pretty well as an
informal thing. As for whether Fedora should make broader
recommendations ... I am not sure at this point Fedora doing so will
have much impact on upstream licensing choices so I don't know if it
would really be worthwhile.
Yeah, probibly not much effect.
Internally at Red Hat, we have had a fairly lengthy list of
default-approved licenses for new projects for some time now. We've
thought about making this a much smaller list. I wouldn't immediately
see a need for this list to be harmonized with a hypothetical Fedora
recommended list since it serves rather different purposes, in
contrast to our goal of harmonizing Fedora "good" and "bad" license
lists more generally with internal Red Hat counterparts.
Just a thought. Perhaps it's not practical / useful now (although it
might have been once upon a time).