Fwd: Question about licensing for data shipped with Goose

[Rodolfo Olivieri]

Hi, folks!

I'm forwarding to this mailing list the thread resulting from the last
comment received on my package review in Bugzilla (
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2428704#c11).

Apparently, most of the mentioned files are trivial, so I'm thinking of
keeping them to facilitate the packaging work and not have to deal with
removal/skipping tests.

Regarding the image found in the test code, I opted to remove it to avoid
future complications.

Any thoughts on this?

Regards,
Rodolfo Olivieri.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Richard Fontana 
Date: Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Question about licensing for data shipped with Goose
To: Máirín Duffy 
Cc: Rodolfo Olivieri

I didn't read the discord conversation because I couldn't authenticate with
the account I apparently have and didn't want to create another one... with
that caveat:
- I would just assume the stuff here
https://github.com/block/goose/tree/main/crates/goose-cli/src/scenario_tests...
is too trivial to worry about
- I would assume the stuff here
https://github.com/block/goose/tree/main/crates/goose-mcp/src/computercontro...
is too trivial to worry about

I'd push a little with the upstream on the goose image since it's the kind
of thing that you might expect a human would claim copyright on and I don't
see any specific reason to assume it's AI-generated. If they say they're
reasonably sure it was AI-generated then I'd take their word for it and
assume it is not copyrighted. If they just don't know, I'd remove the
content.

Richard

On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 1:39 PM Máirín Duffy  wrote:
> Hey Richard,
>
> Goose ships a png file and some CSV files as part of Goose that are part
> of their test suite. This came up in packaging review in Fedora as a
> potential licensing issue and concerns about redistributing the content.
> The Goose developers believe the content is LLM-generated but we weren't
> able to get more details on its origin.
>
> This is the conversation with Goose upstream:
>
> https://discord.com/channels/1287729918100246654/1287729920319033345/1470766...
>
> This is the actual content in question:
>
> https://github.com/block/goose/tree/main/crates/goose-cli/src/scenario_tests...
>
> https://github.com/block/goose/tree/main/crates/goose-cli/src/scenario_tests...
>
> https://github.com/block/goose/tree/main/crates/goose-mcp/src/computercontro...
>
> The bugzilla with the package reviwe and more specifics is here (points #2
> and #4):
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2428704#c11
>
> We were wondering how you'd advise handling this - drop the content
> entirely from the package, ask Goose upstream to explicitly license it
> under a license you could recommend for us,  or something else?
>
> TIA,
> ~m
>
> Máirín "Mo" Duffy she/her/hers
>
> Distinguished Engineer, ⚡ RHEL Lightspeed
>
> Boston, MA, USA
> https://www.redhat.com/

[Neal Gompa]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 7:47 AM Rodolfo Olivieri via legal <
[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi, folks!
>
> I'm forwarding to this mailing list the thread resulting from the last
> comment received on my package review in Bugzilla (
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2428704#c11).
>
> Apparently, most of the mentioned files are trivial, so I'm thinking of
> keeping them to facilitate the packaging work and not have to deal with
> removal/skipping tests.
>
> Regarding the image found in the test code, I opted to remove it to avoid
> future complications.
>
> Any thoughts on this?

Since Richard Fontana said it's good, I'd say go with it.

[Rodolfo Olivieri]

Sounds good.

I'm adding @Richard Fontana  in CC here as I need to
ask about one more source from goose. I thought that updating to 1.24.0
(which removes this crate completely) would help, but turns out that
updating to that version will be harder than I thought.

Given that fact, I'm pinning goose to 1.23.2, which still contains those
files
https://github.com/block/goose/tree/v1.23.2/crates/goose-bench/src/assets,
I'm wondering if they also get treated as trivial (as the other ones), or
if we should remove them.

Thanks!

On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 9:50 AM Neal Gompa  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 7:47 AM Rodolfo Olivieri via legal <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi, folks!
> >
> > I'm forwarding to this mailing list the thread resulting from the last
> > comment received on my package review in Bugzilla (
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2428704#c11).
> >
> > Apparently, most of the mentioned files are trivial, so I'm thinking of
> > keeping them to facilitate the packaging work and not have to deal with
> > removal/skipping tests.
> >
> > Regarding the image found in the test code, I opted to remove it to avoid
> > future complications.
> >
> > Any thoughts on this?
>
> Since Richard Fontana said it's good, I'd say go with it.
>
> --
> 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

[Richard Fontana]

This stuff is not really "trivial" but for various reasons, I don't think
anything here needs to be removed or changed.

Richard

On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 8:27 AM Rodolfo Olivieri 
wrote:
> Sounds good.
>
> I'm adding @Richard Fontana  in CC here as I need to
> ask about one more source from goose. I thought that updating to 1.24.0
> (which removes this crate completely) would help, but turns out that
> updating to that version will be harder than I thought.
>
> Given that fact, I'm pinning goose to 1.23.2, which still contains those
> files
> https://github.com/block/goose/tree/v1.23.2/crates/goose-bench/src/assets,
> I'm wondering if they also get treated as trivial (as the other ones), or
> if we should remove them.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 9:50 AM Neal Gompa  wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 7:47 AM Rodolfo Olivieri via legal <
> > [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Hi, folks!
> > >
> > > I'm forwarding to this mailing list the thread resulting from the last
> > > comment received on my package review in Bugzilla (
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2428704#c11).
> > >
> > > Apparently, most of the mentioned files are trivial, so I'm thinking of
> > > keeping them to facilitate the packaging work and not have to deal with
> > > removal/skipping tests.
> > >
> > > Regarding the image found in the test code, I opted to remove it to
> > > avoid future complications.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts on this?
> >
> > Since Richard Fontana said it's good, I'd say go with it.
> >
> > --
> > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
>
> --
>
> Rodolfo Olivieri
>
> He/Him
>
> Principal Software Engineer, RHEL Lightspeed
>
> Red Hat https://www.redhat.com
>
> [e-mail]
> @redhatbr https://twitter.com/redhatbr   @red-hat
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/red-hat  @redhatbrasil
> https://www.facebook.com/redhatbrasil
> https://www.redhat.com
> https://redhat.com/options

[Rodolfo Olivieri]

Thanks a lot, Richard!

On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 11:33 AM Richard Fontana 
wrote:
> This stuff is not really "trivial" but for various reasons, I don't think
> anything here needs to be removed or changed.
>
> Richard
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 8:27 AM Rodolfo Olivieri 
> wrote:
> > Sounds good.
> >
> > I'm adding @Richard Fontana  in CC here as I need
> > to ask about one more source from goose. I thought that updating to 1.24.0
> > (which removes this crate completely) would help, but turns out that
> > updating to that version will be harder than I thought.
> >
> > Given that fact, I'm pinning goose to 1.23.2, which still contains those
> > files
> > https://github.com/block/goose/tree/v1.23.2/crates/goose-bench/src/assets,
> > I'm wondering if they also get treated as trivial (as the other ones), or
> > if we should remove them.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 9:50 AM Neal Gompa  wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 7:47 AM Rodolfo Olivieri via legal <
> > > [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > Hi, folks!
> > > >
> > > > I'm forwarding to this mailing list the thread resulting from the last
> > > > comment received on my package review in Bugzilla (
> > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2428704#c11).
> > > >
> > > > Apparently, most of the mentioned files are trivial, so I'm thinking of
> > > > keeping them to facilitate the packaging work and not have to deal with
> > > > removal/skipping tests.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the image found in the test code, I opted to remove it to
> > > > avoid future complications.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts on this?
> > >
> > > Since Richard Fontana said it's good, I'd say go with it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
> >
> > --
> >
> > Rodolfo Olivieri
> >
> > He/Him
> >
> > Principal Software Engineer, RHEL Lightspeed
> >
> > Red Hat https://www.redhat.com
> >
> > [e-mail]
> > @redhatbr https://twitter.com/redhatbr   @red-hat
> > https://www.linkedin.com/company/red-hat  @redhatbrasil
> > https://www.facebook.com/redhatbrasil
> > https://www.redhat.com
> > https://redhat.com/options