good/bad v. approved/not-approved

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Hi all,


As has been mentioned here prior, Richard and I are having a look at the 
Licensing part of the Wiki with an eye towards any updates and 
improvements, as well as moving that to the Fedora Docs (along with 
David C's work on the database for the license info).

Recently Richard posted here regarding an attempt to better define the 
Fedora license categories in terms of what constitutes a "good" license. 
He referenced the use of the terminology of "good" and "bad" to
indicate 
whether a license is approved for use in Fedora or not.

I wanted to raise that separately b/c as we go through the 
documentation, how to best explain things in the clearest way comes up.  
It'd be helpful to hear people's views on this.

Historically - "good" has meant the license is approved for use in 
Fedora; "bad" has meant the license is not approved for use in Fedora; 
and then there are also three nuanced categories related to fonts, 
documentation, and content which mean that certain licenses are only 
approved for use in that context, but not otherwise approved.

How do people feel about the use of "good", "good-for-fonts",
"bad", etc 
to describe these categories?  Would simply using "approved", 
"approved-for-fonts", "not-approved", etc. be easier to understand?

I'll throw in my opinion here, since I'm asking for that of others: I'm 
kind of mixed on this.  I always thought the good/bad indicator was kind 
of nice in it's informality. However, now that I'm looking more closely 
at documentation, sometimes the use of good and bad can end up reading 
oddly. Practically speaking, I think use of "approved" and 
"not-approved" might end up being easier to understand. Good/bad also 
also has a greater connotation of judgement versus simply "approved" - 
which implies more closely that it must be approved for something. So, I 
guess I'd lean towards simply using "approved" and
"not-approved".

Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the Fedora licensing 
documentation - what are your thoughts on this?

Jilayne

[Neal Gompa]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 2:03 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hi all,
>
>
>  As has been mentioned here prior, Richard and I are having a look at the Licensing part
> of the Wiki with an eye towards any updates and improvements, as well as moving that to
> the Fedora Docs (along with David C's work on the database for the license info).
>
>  Recently Richard posted here regarding an attempt to better define the Fedora license
> categories in terms of what constitutes a "good" license. He referenced the use
> of the terminology of "good" and "bad" to indicate whether a license
> is approved for use in Fedora or not.
>
>  I wanted to raise that separately b/c as we go through the documentation, how to best
> explain things in the clearest way comes up.  It'd be helpful to hear people's
> views on this.
>
>  Historically - "good" has meant the license is approved for use in Fedora;
> "bad" has meant the license is not approved for use in Fedora; and then there
> are also three nuanced categories related to fonts, documentation, and content which mean
> that certain licenses are only approved for use in that context, but not otherwise
> approved.
>
>  How do people feel about the use of "good", "good-for-fonts", 
> "bad", etc to describe these categories?  Would simply using
> "approved", "approved-for-fonts", "not-approved", etc. be
> easier to understand?
>
>  I'll throw in my opinion here, since I'm asking for that of others: I'm kind
> of mixed on this.  I always thought the good/bad indicator was kind of nice in it's
> informality. However, now that I'm looking more closely at documentation, sometimes
> the use of good and bad can end up reading oddly. Practically speaking, I think use of
> "approved" and "not-approved" might end up being easier to understand.
> Good/bad also also has a greater connotation of judgement versus simply
> "approved" - which implies more closely that it must be approved for something.
> So, I guess I'd lean towards simply using "approved" and
> "not-approved".
>
>  Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the Fedora licensing
> documentation - what are your thoughts on this?
>  
Fedora's licensing documentation is designed for not only packagers,
but for developers to use to make value judgements. The usage of
"good"/"bad" terminology and the emphasis on value judgements
throughout our documentation on licensing is oriented around this. I
would personally prefer to keep it structured that way because it
makes understanding the impact and referencing it to others much
simpler.

The usage of "approved"/"not-approved" explicitly removes the value
judgement aspect and I think that would be a major loss for us.


-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

[Richard Fontana]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 2:17 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 2:03 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  >
>  > Hi all,
>  >
>  >
>  > As has been mentioned here prior, Richard and I are having a look at the Licensing
> part of the Wiki with an eye towards any updates and improvements, as well as moving that
> to the Fedora Docs (along with David C's work on the database for the license info).
>  >
>  > Recently Richard posted here regarding an attempt to better define the Fedora
> license categories in terms of what constitutes a "good" license. He referenced
> the use of the terminology of "good" and "bad" to indicate whether a
> license is approved for use in Fedora or not.
>  >
>  > I wanted to raise that separately b/c as we go through the documentation, how to
> best explain things in the clearest way comes up.  It'd be helpful to hear
> people's views on this.
>  >
>  > Historically - "good" has meant the license is approved for use in Fedora;
> "bad" has meant the license is not approved for use in Fedora; and then there
> are also three nuanced categories related to fonts, documentation, and content which mean
> that certain licenses are only approved for use in that context, but not otherwise
> approved.
>  >
>  > How do people feel about the use of "good", "good-for-fonts", 
> "bad", etc to describe these categories?  Would simply using
> "approved", "approved-for-fonts", "not-approved", etc. be
> easier to understand?
>  >
>  > I'll throw in my opinion here, since I'm asking for that of others: I'm
> kind of mixed on this.  I always thought the good/bad indicator was kind of nice in
> it's informality. However, now that I'm looking more closely at documentation,
> sometimes the use of good and bad can end up reading oddly. Practically speaking, I think
> use of "approved" and "not-approved" might end up being easier to
> understand. Good/bad also also has a greater connotation of judgement versus simply
> "approved" - which implies more closely that it must be approved for something.
> So, I guess I'd lean towards simply using "approved" and
> "not-approved".
>  >
>  > Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the Fedora
> licensing documentation - what are your thoughts on this?
>  >
>
>  Fedora's licensing documentation is designed for not only packagers,
>  but for developers to use to make value judgements. The usage of
>  "good"/"bad" terminology and the emphasis on value judgements
>  throughout our documentation on licensing is oriented around this. I
>  would personally prefer to keep it structured that way because it
>  makes understanding the impact and referencing it to others much
>  simpler.
>
>  The usage of "approved"/"not-approved" explicitly removes the value
>  judgement aspect and I think that would be a major loss for us. 
I see the problem with "approved"/"not-approved" as being that it
sounds relatively  unpleasantly "corporate" compared to
"good"/"not
good" which have an attractive, vaguely humorous, vaguely
countercultural quality in keeping with some aspects of Fedora's
roots. But the problem with "good"/"not good" is precisely around
value judgments. Most of these "good" licenses are not really that
good at all -- they are tolerable but in some cases barely acceptable.
They meet minimum standards -- sometimes questionably so. I'm not
suggesting those standards need to be made stricter; they're actually
already pretty strict. But I wouldn't want to give the message that we
actually think most (if not all) of these licenses are "good" in the
normal English language sense of "good".

So on balance I'd support "approved" or "acceptable" over
"good".

Richard

[Jerry James]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 12:44 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  I see the problem with "approved"/"not-approved"
> as being that it
>  sounds relatively  unpleasantly "corporate" compared to
> "good"/"not
>  good" which have an attractive, vaguely humorous, vaguely
>  countercultural quality in keeping with some aspects of Fedora's
>  roots. But the problem with "good"/"not good" is precisely around
>  value judgments. Most of these "good" licenses are not really that
>  good at all -- they are tolerable but in some cases barely acceptable.
>  They meet minimum standards -- sometimes questionably so. I'm not
>  suggesting those standards need to be made stricter; they're actually
>  already pretty strict. But I wouldn't want to give the message that we
>  actually think most (if not all) of these licenses are "good" in the
>  normal English language sense of "good".
>
>  So on balance I'd support "approved" or "acceptable" over
> "good". 
When I evaluate a project for packaging in Fedora, what I want to know
is: "Is this project released under a license that permits packaging
it for Fedora?"  The approved/not-approved language speaks to that.
That's the only value judgment I need to make, so with my packager hat
on, I am okay with moving away from good/bad.

Neal's point about developers is an interesting one.  Thinking about
this with my developer hat on, my task is to select a license that
gives me the protections I want, and gives others the right to do with
it what I want them to do with it.  Let's say that I have selected a
candidate license, and that I want Linux distributions to redistribute
my software.  My question now is, "Do the Linux distributions I care
about accept this license?"  Approved/not-approved clearly answers
that question.  Good/bad sort of answers that question, but less
clearly in my mind.

Sorry Neal, but I don't see how approved/not-approved loses anything
over good/bad.  Can you clarify what you think would be lost?
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
>  Hi all,
>  
>  
>  As has been mentioned here prior, Richard and I are having a look at the
>  Licensing part of the Wiki with an eye towards any updates and improvements,
>  as well as moving that to the Fedora Docs (along with David C's work on the
>  database for the license info).
>  
>  Recently Richard posted here regarding an attempt to better define the
>  Fedora license categories in terms of what constitutes a "good" license. He
>  referenced the use of the terminology of "good" and "bad" to
> indicate
>  whether a license is approved for use in Fedora or not.
>  
>  I wanted to raise that separately b/c as we go through the documentation,
>  how to best explain things in the clearest way comes up.  It'd be helpful to
>  hear people's views on this.
>  
>  Historically - "good" has meant the license is approved for use in Fedora;
>  "bad" has meant the license is not approved for use in Fedora; and then
>  there are also three nuanced categories related to fonts, documentation, and
>  content which mean that certain licenses are only approved for use in that
>  context, but not otherwise approved.
>  
>  How do people feel about the use of "good", "good-for-fonts",
> "bad", etc to
>  describe these categories?  Would simply using "approved",
>  "approved-for-fonts", "not-approved", etc. be easier to understand?
>  
>  I'll throw in my opinion here, since I'm asking for that of others: I'm kind
>  of mixed on this.  I always thought the good/bad indicator was kind of nice
>  in it's informality. However, now that I'm looking more closely at
>  documentation, sometimes the use of good and bad can end up reading oddly.
>  Practically speaking, I think use of "approved" and "not-approved"
> might end
>  up being easier to understand. Good/bad also also has a greater connotation
>  of judgement versus simply "approved" - which implies more closely that it
>  must be approved for something. So, I guess I'd lean towards simply using
>  "approved" and "not-approved".
>  
>  Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the Fedora licensing
>  documentation - what are your thoughts on this? 
I like the idea of moving to 'approved' vs 'not approved' in general. I
think most people looking at that list will be looking in the context of
packaging for Fedora and will just want to know if it's approved or not. 

That said, I think Neil makes a good point about people choosing
licenses. Would it make sense to have 'approved' and 'not approved' and
'reccomended' ? :) Of course then recommended would be subjective, but
perhaps thats ok. This would just be a smaller subset of licenses that
are not only approved, but encouraged by the project.

kevin

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

On 3/3/22 2:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
> >
> > Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the Fedora
> licensing
> > documentation - what are your thoughts on this?
>  I like the idea of moving to 'approved' vs 'not approved' in general. I
>  think most people looking at that list will be looking in the context of
>  packaging for Fedora and will just want to know if it's approved or not.
>
>  That said, I think Neil makes a good point about people choosing
>  licenses. Would it make sense to have 'approved' and 'not approved' and
>  'reccomended' ? :) Of course then recommended would be subjective, but
>  perhaps thats ok. This would just be a smaller subset of licenses that
>  are not only approved, but encouraged by the project.
>  
That's an interesting idea  - are you thinking this would be in the 
context of:  "If you are creating or considering a license for a package 
that you want included in Fedora, here is a list of recommended licenses 
to use" ?  (which I suppose implicitly says, use an approved/good one, 
but don't just pick any old approved/good one, please)

Jilayne
>  _______________________________________________
>  legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to legal-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/[e-mail]
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Neal Gompa]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 5:08 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On 3/3/22 2:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
>  >>
>  >> Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the Fedora
> licensing
>  >> documentation - what are your thoughts on this?
>  > I like the idea of moving to 'approved' vs 'not approved' in
> general. I
>  > think most people looking at that list will be looking in the context of
>  > packaging for Fedora and will just want to know if it's approved or not.
>  >
>  > That said, I think Neil makes a good point about people choosing
>  > licenses. Would it make sense to have 'approved' and 'not approved'
> and
>  > 'reccomended' ? :) Of course then recommended would be subjective, but
>  > perhaps thats ok. This would just be a smaller subset of licenses that
>  > are not only approved, but encouraged by the project.
>  >
>  That's an interesting idea  - are you thinking this would be in the
>  context of:  "If you are creating or considering a license for a package
>  that you want included in Fedora, here is a list of recommended licenses
>  to use" ?  (which I suppose implicitly says, use an approved/good one,
>  but don't just pick any old approved/good one, please)
>  
Yes, indeed. I've used the Fedora licensing documentation many times
over the years to advise and inform people of what they should pick.
The good/bad split as well as the "will it blend" chart are extremely
helpful for giving these people an understanding of what they should
go with.

Approval/Disapproval language is too weak for that purpose.
Objectively, someone can pick any license. They can even pick any OSS
license, but our licensing documentation also includes information about
preferences and opinions that inform how we should perceive licenses.



--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

[Richard Fontana]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 5:08 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On 3/3/22 2:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
>  >>
>  >> Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the Fedora
> licensing
>  >> documentation - what are your thoughts on this?
>  > I like the idea of moving to 'approved' vs 'not approved' in
> general. I
>  > think most people looking at that list will be looking in the context of
>  > packaging for Fedora and will just want to know if it's approved or not.
>  >
>  > That said, I think Neil makes a good point about people choosing
>  > licenses. Would it make sense to have 'approved' and 'not approved'
> and
>  > 'reccomended' ? :) Of course then recommended would be subjective, but
>  > perhaps thats ok. This would just be a smaller subset of licenses that
>  > are not only approved, but encouraged by the project.
>  >
>  That's an interesting idea  - are you thinking this would be in the
>  context of:  "If you are creating or considering a license for a package
>  that you want included in Fedora, here is a list of recommended licenses
>  to use" ?  (which I suppose implicitly says, use an approved/good one,
>  but don't just pick any old approved/good one, please) 
Historically I think Fedora had some informal standards around
Fedora-specific projects (not Fedora packages, but projects that are
in some sense part of the larger Fedora project) but I am not sure
this has ever really been documented. Most Fedora projects seem to use
GPLv2, the MIT license, LGPLv2.1, perhaps GPLv3 to some degree. I
don't see a compelling need for Fedora to start making recommendations
for *Fedora* projects since this has seemed to work pretty well as an
informal thing. As for whether Fedora should make broader
recommendations ... I am not sure at this point Fedora doing so will
have much impact on upstream licensing choices so I don't know if it
would really be worthwhile.

Internally at Red Hat, we have had a fairly lengthy list of
default-approved licenses for new projects for some time now. We've
thought about making this a much smaller list. I wouldn't immediately
see a need for this list to be harmonized with a hypothetical Fedora
recommended list since it serves rather different purposes, in
contrast to our goal of harmonizing Fedora "good" and "bad" license
lists more generally with internal Red Hat counterparts.

Richard

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 05:18:48PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
>  On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 5:08 PM Jilayne Lovejoy
> <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > On 3/3/22 2:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
>  > >>
>  > >> Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the
> Fedora licensing
>  > >> documentation - what are your thoughts on this?
>  > > I like the idea of moving to 'approved' vs 'not approved' in
> general. I
>  > > think most people looking at that list will be looking in the context of
>  > > packaging for Fedora and will just want to know if it's approved or not.
>  > >
>  > > That said, I think Neil makes a good point about people choosing
>  > > licenses. Would it make sense to have 'approved' and 'not
> approved' and
>  > > 'reccomended' ? :) Of course then recommended would be subjective, but
>  > > perhaps thats ok. This would just be a smaller subset of licenses that
>  > > are not only approved, but encouraged by the project.
>  > >
>  > That's an interesting idea  - are you thinking this would be in the
>  > context of:  "If you are creating or considering a license for a package
>  > that you want included in Fedora, here is a list of recommended licenses
>  > to use" ?  (which I suppose implicitly says, use an approved/good one,
>  > but don't just pick any old approved/good one, please) 
Yeah... More like "If you are starting an open source project and plan
to package it for Fedora, here's a list of what we consider the "best"
licenses to use.

>  Historically I think Fedora had some informal standards around
>  Fedora-specific projects (not Fedora packages, but projects that are
>  in some sense part of the larger Fedora project) but I am not sure
>  this has ever really been documented. Most Fedora projects seem to use 
There have been some standards around applications/packages written for
Fedora Infrastructure: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing
but of course thats changed somewhat in recent years with the Fedora
Council saying it was ok to use non free infrastructure if needed.

>  GPLv2, the MIT license, LGPLv2.1, perhaps GPLv3 to some degree. I
>  don't see a compelling need for Fedora to start making recommendations
>  for *Fedora* projects since this has seemed to work pretty well as an
>  informal thing. As for whether Fedora should make broader
>  recommendations ... I am not sure at this point Fedora doing so will
>  have much impact on upstream licensing choices so I don't know if it
>  would really be worthwhile. 
Yeah, probibly not much effect. 

>  Internally at Red Hat, we have had a fairly lengthy list of
>  default-approved licenses for new projects for some time now. We've
>  thought about making this a much smaller list. I wouldn't immediately
>  see a need for this list to be harmonized with a hypothetical Fedora
>  recommended list since it serves rather different purposes, in
>  contrast to our goal of harmonizing Fedora "good" and "bad" license
>  lists more generally with internal Red Hat counterparts. 
Just a thought. Perhaps it's not practical / useful now (although it
might have been once upon a time).

kevin

[Björn Persson]

Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
>  Practically speaking, I think use of "approved" and 
>  "not-approved" might end up being easier to understand. 
"Not approved" can be understood as "not yet decided". You might get
requests to please evaluate and approve this or that not-approved
license.

I think "disapproved" would be clearer. Or "forbidden",
"prohibited",
"rejected" or "disallowed".

Björn Persson

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 03. 03. 22 v 23:48 Björn Persson napsal(a):
>  Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
> > Practically speaking, I think use of "approved" and
> > "not-approved" might end up being easier to understand.
>  "Not approved" can be understood as "not yet decided". You might
> get
>  requests to please evaluate and approve this or that not-approved
>  license.
>  

Yep, same concern here.

Other than that, I also share Neals point, although this is the bigger 
concern to me.


Vít


>  I think "disapproved" would be clearer. Or "forbidden",
> "prohibited",
>  "rejected" or "disallowed".
>
>  Björn Persson
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to legal-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/[e-mail]
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>

[David Cantrell]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> As has been mentioned here prior, Richard and I are having a look at 
> the Licensing part of the Wiki with an eye towards any updates and 
> improvements, as well as moving that to the Fedora Docs (along with 
> David C's work on the database for the license info).
>
> Recently Richard posted here regarding an attempt to better define the 
> Fedora license categories in terms of what constitutes a "good" 
> license. He referenced the use of the terminology of "good" and "bad"
>
> to indicate whether a license is approved for use in Fedora or not.
>
> I wanted to raise that separately b/c as we go through the 
> documentation, how to best explain things in the clearest way comes 
> up.  It'd be helpful to hear people's views on this.
>
> Historically - "good" has meant the license is approved for use in 
> Fedora; "bad" has meant the license is not approved for use in Fedora; 
> and then there are also three nuanced categories related to fonts, 
> documentation, and content which mean that certain licenses are only 
> approved for use in that context, but not otherwise approved.
>
> How do people feel about the use of "good", "good-for-fonts",
> "bad", 
> etc to describe these categories?  Would simply using "approved", 
> "approved-for-fonts", "not-approved", etc. be easier to understand?
>
> I'll throw in my opinion here, since I'm asking for that of others: 
> I'm kind of mixed on this.  I always thought the good/bad indicator 
> was kind of nice in it's informality. However, now that I'm looking 
> more closely at documentation, sometimes the use of good and bad can 
> end up reading oddly. Practically speaking, I think use of "approved" 
> and "not-approved" might end up being easier to understand. Good/bad 
> also also has a greater connotation of judgement versus simply 
> "approved" - which implies more closely that it must be approved for 
> something. So, I guess I'd lean towards simply using "approved" and 
> "not-approved".
>
> Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the Fedora licensing 
> documentation - what are your thoughts on this? 
I do not have any strong feelings one way or another foor good/bad
vs. approved/not-approved.  I have always read "good" and "bad" in the
context
of licenses to combine approval with the project's opinion on the license.  As
Richard indicated, that may not be something the project really wants to do.
Like, we will tolerate a particular license but we do not think it is a good
license.

Approved/not-approved reduces that language to the project decision, but reads
as heavy handed or utilitarian.  Or at least reads as less fun language.

I am ok with a language change in this context.  I would like the license
database should carry approval information distinct from our opinion or view
on a particular license.  The latter data may be more appropriate for overall
Fedora legal documentation for future reference and including long writeups
about how or why we arrived at a particular opinion (story time!).

Looking at thesaurus.com, my favorite synonyms for approved are:

     accepted
     allowed
     permitted
     licensed[1]

[1] This one added as a joke because I thought it was funny that it showed up
as a synonym for approved and we're talking about licenses.  Yeah, let's say
"licensed" to mean an approved license in Fedora.  That should not confuse
anyone.  :)

Thanks,

-- 
David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com&gt;
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

This is a great discussion!

On 3/4/22 7:27 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
>  On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> > As has been mentioned here prior, Richard and I are having a look at 
> > the Licensing part of the Wiki with an eye towards any updates and 
> > improvements, as well as moving that to the Fedora Docs (along with 
> > David C's work on the database for the license info).
> >
> > Recently Richard posted here regarding an attempt to better define 
> > the Fedora license categories in terms of what constitutes a "good" 
> > license. He referenced the use of the terminology of "good" and
> "bad" 
> > to indicate whether a license is approved for use in Fedora or not.
> >
> > I wanted to raise that separately b/c as we go through the 
> > documentation, how to best explain things in the clearest way comes 
> > up.  It'd be helpful to hear people's views on this.
> >
> > Historically - "good" has meant the license is approved for use in 
> > Fedora; "bad" has meant the license is not approved for use in 
> > Fedora; and then there are also three nuanced categories related to 
> > fonts, documentation, and content which mean that certain licenses 
> > are only approved for use in that context, but not otherwise approved.
> >
> > How do people feel about the use of "good", "good-for-fonts",
> "bad", 
> > etc to describe these categories?  Would simply using "approved", 
> > "approved-for-fonts", "not-approved", etc. be easier to
> understand?
> >
> > I'll throw in my opinion here, since I'm asking for that of others: 
> > I'm kind of mixed on this.  I always thought the good/bad indicator 
> > was kind of nice in it's informality. However, now that I'm looking 
> > more closely at documentation, sometimes the use of good and bad can 
> > end up reading oddly. Practically speaking, I think use of "approved" 
> > and "not-approved" might end up being easier to understand. Good/bad 
> > also also has a greater connotation of judgement versus simply 
> > "approved" - which implies more closely that it must be approved for 
> > something. So, I guess I'd lean towards simply using "approved" and 
> > "not-approved".
> >
> > Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the Fedora
> licensing 
> > documentation - what are your thoughts on this?
>
>  I do not have any strong feelings one way or another foor good/bad
>  vs. approved/not-approved.  I have always read "good" and "bad" in
> the 
>  context
>  of licenses to combine approval with the project's opinion on the 
>  license.  As
>  Richard indicated, that may not be something the project really wants 
>  to do.
>  Like, we will tolerate a particular license but we do not think it is 
>  a good
>  license.
>
>  Approved/not-approved reduces that language to the project decision, 
>  but reads
>  as heavy handed or utilitarian.  Or at least reads as less fun language.
>
>  I am ok with a language change in this context.  I would like the license
>  database should carry approval information distinct from our opinion 
>  or view
>  on a particular license.  The latter data may be more appropriate for 
>  overall
>  Fedora legal documentation for future reference and including long 
>  writeups
>  about how or why we arrived at a particular opinion (story time!).
>
>  Looking at thesaurus.com, my favorite synonyms for approved are:
>
>      accepted
>      allowed
>      permitted 
The point about not-approved being thought of in a different way was
a 
really good one.

Given those comments and David's synonyms, could we land on:

Allowed
Allowed-fonts
Allowed-content
Allowed-documentation
Not-allowed

?

Of course, the documentation explaining in more detail the criteria for 
these is what really matters.  In any case, I think it is a good goal to 
use terminology that is easy to grasp on its face, particularly for 
non-native English speakers,  is a good goal.

It seems to me that "allowed" and "permitted" are the most logical,
but 
then I'm a native English speaker, so my opinion is not as key here!

I think I like "allowed" because it makes sense in a sentence: "This 
license is (not)allowed for use in Fedora." I don't think that suffers 
the same potential lack of clarity as "this license is not approved for 
use in Fedora" being taken to mean it has not yet been reviewed/approved.

thoughts?

>      licensed[1]
>
>  [1] This one added as a joke because I thought it was funny that it 
>  showed up
>  as a synonym for approved and we're talking about licenses.  Yeah, 
>  let's say
>  "licensed" to mean an approved license in Fedora.  That should not 
>  confuse
>  anyone.  :) 
oh goodness!

Jilayne

>  Thanks,
>

[David Cantrell]

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 03:52:36PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
>  This is a great discussion!
>  
>  On 3/4/22 7:27 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
>  > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
>  > > Hi all,
>  > > 
>  > > 
>  > > As has been mentioned here prior, Richard and I are having a look at
>  > > the Licensing part of the Wiki with an eye towards any updates and
>  > > improvements, as well as moving that to the Fedora Docs (along with
>  > > David C's work on the database for the license info).
>  > > 
>  > > Recently Richard posted here regarding an attempt to better define
>  > > the Fedora license categories in terms of what constitutes a "good"
>  > > license. He referenced the use of the terminology of "good" and
>  > > "bad" to indicate whether a license is approved for use in Fedora or
>  > > not.
>  > > 
>  > > I wanted to raise that separately b/c as we go through the
>  > > documentation, how to best explain things in the clearest way comes
>  > > up.  It'd be helpful to hear people's views on this.
>  > > 
>  > > Historically - "good" has meant the license is approved for use in
>  > > Fedora; "bad" has meant the license is not approved for use in
>  > > Fedora; and then there are also three nuanced categories related to
>  > > fonts, documentation, and content which mean that certain licenses
>  > > are only approved for use in that context, but not otherwise
>  > > approved.
>  > > 
>  > > How do people feel about the use of "good",
> "good-for-fonts", "bad",
>  > > etc to describe these categories?  Would simply using "approved",
>  > > "approved-for-fonts", "not-approved", etc. be easier to
> understand?
>  > > 
>  > > I'll throw in my opinion here, since I'm asking for that of others:
>  > > I'm kind of mixed on this.  I always thought the good/bad indicator
>  > > was kind of nice in it's informality. However, now that I'm looking
>  > > more closely at documentation, sometimes the use of good and bad can
>  > > end up reading oddly. Practically speaking, I think use of
>  > > "approved" and "not-approved" might end up being easier to
>  > > understand. Good/bad also also has a greater connotation of
>  > > judgement versus simply "approved" - which implies more closely that
>  > > it must be approved for something. So, I guess I'd lean towards
>  > > simply using "approved" and "not-approved".
>  > > 
>  > > Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the Fedora
> licensing
>  > > documentation - what are your thoughts on this?
>  > 
>  > I do not have any strong feelings one way or another foor good/bad
>  > vs. approved/not-approved.  I have always read "good" and "bad"
> in the
>  > context
>  > of licenses to combine approval with the project's opinion on the
>  > license.  As
>  > Richard indicated, that may not be something the project really wants to
>  > do.
>  > Like, we will tolerate a particular license but we do not think it is a
>  > good
>  > license.
>  > 
>  > Approved/not-approved reduces that language to the project decision, but
>  > reads
>  > as heavy handed or utilitarian.  Or at least reads as less fun language.
>  > 
>  > I am ok with a language change in this context.  I would like the license
>  > database should carry approval information distinct from our opinion or
>  > view
>  > on a particular license.  The latter data may be more appropriate for
>  > overall
>  > Fedora legal documentation for future reference and including long
>  > writeups
>  > about how or why we arrived at a particular opinion (story time!).
>  > 
>  > Looking at thesaurus.com, my favorite synonyms for approved are:
>  > 
>  >     accepted
>  >     allowed
>  >     permitted
>  The point about not-approved being thought of in a different way was a
>  really good one.
>  
>  Given those comments and David's synonyms, could we land on:
>  
>  Allowed
>  Allowed-fonts
>  Allowed-content
>  Allowed-documentation
>  Not-allowed
>  
>  ?
>  
>  Of course, the documentation explaining in more detail the criteria for
>  these is what really matters.  In any case, I think it is a good goal to use
>  terminology that is easy to grasp on its face, particularly for non-native
>  English speakers,  is a good goal.
>  
>  It seems to me that "allowed" and "permitted" are the most logical,
> but then
>  I'm a native English speaker, so my opinion is not as key here!
>  
>  I think I like "allowed" because it makes sense in a sentence: "This
> license
>  is (not)allowed for use in Fedora." I don't think that suffers the same
>  potential lack of clarity as "this license is not approved for use in
>  Fedora" being taken to mean it has not yet been reviewed/approved.
>  
>  thoughts? 
I like these.  And the example sentence.  I think allowed is simpler than
permitted.

Thanks,

>  
>  >     licensed[1]
>  > 
>  > [1] This one added as a joke because I thought it was funny that it
>  > showed up
>  > as a synonym for approved and we're talking about licenses.  Yeah, let's
>  > say
>  > "licensed" to mean an approved license in Fedora.  That should not
>  > confuse
>  > anyone.  :)
>  
>  oh goodness!
>  
>  Jilayne
>  
>  > 
>  > Thanks,
>  >  
-- 
David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com&gt;
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT