On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:53 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Separately, I wonder if Fedora really needs separate categories
for
> software and documentation, if the criteria for approval are basically
> the same -- essentially, whether the license is libre (by Fedora's own
> assessment) -- except that documentation licenses are seen as normally
> unsuitable for software. It is clear (to me at least) that any good
> Fedora software license should be good for documentation as well, if
> only because in practice documentation in packages is often covered by
> the software license -- indeed, this is probably much more common than
> cases where a special documentation license is used.
Interesting question here... perhaps for the time being we keep the
distinction, if nothing else than the ease of human minds tendency to
think about software and documentation as being different. Again, the
rationale and explanation should be explicit in the legal/licensing
pages. (seems like some of this email will be a helpful start for said
explanations!)
I agree, should keep the distinction for now. I am a little worried
that there is some assumed line between "non-documentation content"
and "documentation" that has been formulated out of convenience (e.g.,
if some file is under a no-derivatives type of license, Fedora has
struggled to see that type of file as a "non-documentation content"
file rather than a "documentation content" file. But that's just a
hunch right now, and anyway could be better addressed with more
clearly defined categories and guidance.
Richard