Request for adding licenses from Vim into allowed licenses

[Zdenek Dohnal]

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-excep...

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

-- 
Zdenek Dohnal
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat, BRQ-TPBC

[Richard Fontana]

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:22 AM Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal(a)redhat.com&gt; 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-excep...
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/OPUB...
(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

[Jerry James]

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:42 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com&gt; 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/OPUB...
>  (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.
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/

[Richard Fontana]

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 11:09 AM Jerry James <loganjerry(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:42 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com&gt; 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/OPUB...
>  > (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

[Zdenek Dohnal]

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(a)redhat.com&gt; 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-excep...
>  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/OPUB...
>  (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
>  
-- 
Zdenek Dohnal
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat, BRQ-TPBC

[Richard Fontana]

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 4:03 AM Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal(a)redhat.com&gt; 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/OPUB...
>  > (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