Hi,
I've found the following licenses in Vim package, which aren't in allowed licenses:
Apache License v2.0 with Runtime Library Exception - see https://swift.org/LICENSE.txt or https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/apache-2.0-runtime-library-exceptio...
Open Publication License, v1.0 or later - see http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
Would you mind adding them into allowed licenses for Fedora?
Thank you in advance!
Zdenek
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:22 AM Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
I've found the following licenses in Vim package, which aren't in allowed licenses:
Apache License v2.0 with Runtime Library Exception - see https://swift.org/LICENSE.txt or https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/apache-2.0-runtime-library-exceptio...
This is what SPDX calls Swift-exception. Please submit an issue at https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data to add `Apache-2.0 WITH Swift-exception`.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-review-process/
Open Publication License, v1.0 or later - see http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
Ignoring the 'or later' issue, this license (SPDX: OPUBL-1.0) is generally classified as "not allowed" with a usage note that says it is allowed for documentation "if the copyright holder does not exercise any of the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI". https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/data/OPUBL-1... (I think we did it this way because under our new system prohibiting it by default while stating an exception was the most convenient way to express the policy, which has been in place in Fedora for at least ~15 years.)
Richard
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:42 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
Open Publication License, v1.0 or later - see http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
Ignoring the 'or later' issue, this license (SPDX: OPUBL-1.0) is generally classified as "not allowed" with a usage note that says it is allowed for documentation "if the copyright holder does not exercise any of the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI". https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/data/OPUBL-1... (I think we did it this way because under our new system prohibiting it by default while stating an exception was the most convenient way to express the policy, which has been in place in Fedora for at least ~15 years.)
We stopped building documentation for the coq package because it is under this license. The LICENSE file says: "Options A and B are *not* elected." I only see options A and B in Section VI, so that would fall under this exception, right?
When I visit https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ and search for OPUBL-1.0, the usage note you refer to does not appear, so I was unaware of it. Now that you mention it, I do see it in data/OPUBL-1.0.toml in the Fedora License Data repository. I just paged through every license on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ and no usage notes are displayed for any of them.
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 11:09 AM Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:42 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
Open Publication License, v1.0 or later - see http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
Ignoring the 'or later' issue, this license (SPDX: OPUBL-1.0) is generally classified as "not allowed" with a usage note that says it is allowed for documentation "if the copyright holder does not exercise any of the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI". https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/data/OPUBL-1... (I think we did it this way because under our new system prohibiting it by default while stating an exception was the most convenient way to express the policy, which has been in place in Fedora for at least ~15 years.)
We stopped building documentation for the coq package because it is under this license. The LICENSE file says: "Options A and B are *not* elected." I only see options A and B in Section VI, so that would fall under this exception, right?
Yes.
When I visit https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ and search for OPUBL-1.0, the usage note you refer to does not appear, so I was unaware of it. Now that you mention it, I do see it in data/OPUBL-1.0.toml in the Fedora License Data repository. I just paged through every license on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ and no usage notes are displayed for any of them.
Yes, there is an open issue about this: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/164
Richard
Richard,
thank you for looking into it!
On 4/5/23 15:41, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:22 AM Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
I've found the following licenses in Vim package, which aren't in allowed licenses:
Apache License v2.0 with Runtime Library Exception - see https://swift.org/LICENSE.txt or https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/apache-2.0-runtime-library-exceptio...
This is what SPDX calls Swift-exception. Please submit an issue at https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data to add `Apache-2.0 WITH Swift-exception`.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-review-process/
Reported here https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/188
Open Publication License, v1.0 or later - see http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
Ignoring the 'or later' issue, this license (SPDX: OPUBL-1.0) is generally classified as "not allowed" with a usage note that says it is allowed for documentation "if the copyright holder does not exercise any of the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI". https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/data/OPUBL-1... (I think we did it this way because under our new system prohibiting it by default while stating an exception was the most convenient way to express the policy, which has been in place in Fedora for at least ~15 years.)
Ok, Vim has it for its documentation and 'grep' didn't see any sentences which should be in the source if upstream exercises license options, so IMO we're clear.
So I will add the license to the license tag and add a comment that it is for documentation and upstream does not use any license options. Sounds ok?
Zdenek
Richard
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 4:03 AM Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com wrote:
Ignoring the 'or later' issue, this license (SPDX: OPUBL-1.0) is generally classified as "not allowed" with a usage note that says it is allowed for documentation "if the copyright holder does not exercise any of the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI". https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/data/OPUBL-1... (I think we did it this way because under our new system prohibiting it by default while stating an exception was the most convenient way to express the policy, which has been in place in Fedora for at least ~15 years.)
Ok, Vim has it for its documentation and 'grep' didn't see any sentences which should be in the source if upstream exercises license options, so IMO we're clear.
So I will add the license to the license tag and add a comment that it is for documentation and upstream does not use any license options. Sounds ok?
Sorry, I think I missed this part of your reply. Yes, that sounds OK!
Richard
-
Jerry James -
Richard Fontana -
Zdenek Dohnal