7:58 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 12:27:56PM -0400, Richard Fontana 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
I'll try to provide a broader context to answer why I think it's important.
The first aspect is legal and formal: we provide software and assets for download
that are copyrighted by many many different authors, and those people make those
items available under some specific licenses. Those licenses are intended to allow
free reuse, but they are not free-for-all "public domain" licenses. Thus to
avoid
misrepresenting the permissions for our deliverables, we should provide some
blurb that unambiguously links to a formal description that this is a collective
work and that individual licenses need to be followed and where they can be found.
The second aspect is (I believe) a big missed marketing opportunity: not
everyone who gets to our download page "lives and breathes" open source, and
even if something is "free to download", for many people this is not
immediately
what exactly this means. So I think we should provide a blurb that emphasizes
freedom, but also allows people to dig deeper. (I think that somebody
who stumbles upon getfedora.o should be able to learn at least a bit what
open source is and I'd consider this part of the outreach to the wider
community.) I think the current text on the website does a decent job,
but the missing part is a hyperlink to further documents that would explain
this in an accessible way.
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".
The text in the PR now is:
<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 Linux distribution
itself. <a
href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Licenses/LicenseAgreement...
License</a>{% endtrans %}</small>
Zbyszek