legal May 2023

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

9 participants
15 discussions

Fwd: SPDX Statistics - Victory day
by Miroslav Suchý 08 May '23

08 May '23

-------- Přeposlaná zpráva -------- Předmět: SPDX Statistics - Victory day Datum: Mon, 8 May 2023 09:48:26 +0200 Od: Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> Společnost: Red Hat Czech, s.r.o. Komu: Development discussions related to Fedora <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> Two weeks ago we had: > * 22961 spec files in Fedora > > * 29459license tags in all spec files > > * 19099 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet > > * 7404tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx` > > * Progress: 35% ░░░███████ 100% > Today we have: * 23000 spec files in Fedora (wow, nice round number :) ) * 29503license tags in all spec files * 18744 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet * 7157tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx` * Progress: 36% ░░░███████ 100% ELN subset: * 1987 out of 4704 packages are not converted yet The list of packages needed to be converted is again here: https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-f… List by package maintainers is here https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-f… List of packages from ELN subset that needs to be converted: https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/eln-not-migrated.txt New version of fedora-license-data has been released. Legal docs and especially https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ was updated too. I updated the progress in this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QVMEzXWML-6_Mrlln02axFAaRKCQ8zE807r… You converted about 400 license tags in 14 days. New projection when we will be finished is 2024-07-30. Pure linear approximation. If your package does not have neither git-log entry nor spec-changelog entry mentioning SPDX and you know your license tag matches SPDX formula, you can put your package on ignore list https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/ignore-packages.txt Either pull-request or email to me is fine. Why Victory day? On this day, 78 years ago Karl Dönitz announce capitulation of Germany via radio. You can listen to his announcement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8tXt0buPbA or read about the Victory day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_in_Europe_Day Do you hesitate how to proceed with the migration? Please follow https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/ or attend SPDX office hours (see different thread in this mailing list) Miroslav

1 0

Re: Changing the License tag of python-rpm-generators from GPLv2+ to a monstrosity
by Richard Fontana 05 May '23

05 May '23

On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 9:56 AM Chris Kelley <ckelley(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > As a purely logical expression, this simplifies to "GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later". Is that sort of simplification not allowed? The short answer is, these are not truly logical expressions and therefore they shouldn't necessarily simplify. Of course you could adopt some arbitrary convention for such simplification, which might or might not be well-grounded in some interpretation of the licenses at issue. In the past, there was no documented uniform set of conventions and basically each package maintainer applied their own assumptions about how license expressions could be simplified, leading to general inconsistency across different packages. The general trend in Fedora that I observed over many years was that license tags were getting more specific, i.e. less "simplification" was being done (or ignoring certain licenses was occurring less). This is actually shown by the fact that the Callaway system had a "Public Domain" which was widely used in packages with license tags containing references to other licenses. So we aren't actually changing policy here. Still, the cases involving public domain dedications are fairly extreme in this regard. If we *were* to adopt some system of simplification of license expressions that's probably where we'd start. Richard > > On Fri, 5 May 2023, 13:20 Miro Hrončok, <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote: >> >> python-rpm-generators License tag changes from GPLv2+ to: >> >> GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND (LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR >> LGPL-2.1-or-later OR GPL-2.0-or-later) >> >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/pull-request/67 >> >> Funny thing is that the "(LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR LGPL-2.1-or-later >> OR GPL-2.0-or-later)" thing was originally chosen to keep the License tag of >> the package simple while allowing others to grab the code from it without >> obligations :/ >> >> -- >> Miro Hrončok >

1 0

Re: Changing the License tag of python-rpm-generators from GPLv2+ to a monstrosity
by Mamoru TASAKA 05 May '23

05 May '23

Chris Kelley wrote on 2023/05/05 22:55: > As a purely logical expression, this simplifies to "GPL-2.0-or-later AND > LGPL-2.1-or-later". Is that sort of simplification not allowed? > This is no longer allowed: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_no_effective_lic… Yes, so I am also re-checking the whole sources in the srpm I maintain... Regards, Mamoru > > On Fri, 5 May 2023, 13:20 Miro Hrončok, <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote: > >> python-rpm-generators License tag changes from GPLv2+ to: >> >> GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND >> (LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR >> LGPL-2.1-or-later OR GPL-2.0-or-later) >> >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/pull-request/67 >> >> Funny thing is that the "(LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR >> LGPL-2.1-or-later >> OR GPL-2.0-or-later)" thing was originally chosen to keep the License tag >> of >> the package simple while allowing others to grab the code from it without >> obligations :/ >> >> -- >> Miro Hrončok >> -- >> Phone: +420777974800 >> IRC: mhroncok >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> Fedora Code of Conduct: >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >> List Archives: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Do not reply to spam, report it: >> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue >> > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

2 1

Changing the License tag of python-rpm-generators from GPLv2+ to a monstrosity
by Miro Hrončok 05 May '23

05 May '23

python-rpm-generators License tag changes from GPLv2+ to: GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND (LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR LGPL-2.1-or-later OR GPL-2.0-or-later) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/pull-request/67 Funny thing is that the "(LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR LGPL-2.1-or-later OR GPL-2.0-or-later)" thing was originally chosen to keep the License tag of the package simple while allowing others to grab the code from it without obligations :/ -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

1 0

"This document is placed in the public domain or under the CC0-1.0-Universal license, whichever is more permissive"
by Miro Hrončok 03 May '23

03 May '23

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? --- Now suppose I have *a script* licensed like this. Do I make different choices because CC0-1.0 is not allowed for code? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

2 3

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal May 2023