I just ran rpmlint over a package under the OFL-1.1-RFN license, with the rpmlint-fedora-license-data package installed. I got "W: invalid-license OFL-1.1-RFN". I undertook a search on the allowed [1] and not allowed [2] license pages. Only "OFL-1.1" appears anywhere, under the "All licenses" section of [1]. (And, faithfully reproducing this, "OFL-1.1" is the only OFL* license that appears in the rpmlint-fedora-license-data package.)
The underlying license data [3] from which [1] and [2] are generated lists all of OFL-1.0, OFL-1.0-RFN, OFL-1.0-no-RFN, OFL-1.1, OFL-1.1-RFN, and OFL-1.1-no-RFN. Why aren't the other licenses showing up on [1] and in rpmlint-fedora-license-data? Is it because "OFL-1.1" is the only one of the six that has a "Y" in both the "OSI?" and "FSFLibre?" columns of licenses.md? If so, what does that imply about the status of the other 5 licenses for Fedora?
References: [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ [3] https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data
Hi Jerry,
Good catch! I think what may have happened is that OFL-1.1 was on the Fedora allowed-fonts list for some time and mapped to SPDX. But more recently, SPDX added the additional identifiers related to reserved font names to capture when that is explicitly triggered or not.
So, it's a matter of Fedora now reviewing those explicit scenarios and adding those ids to the data. I've added an issue to this end here: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/81
Could you add the package name in that issue for reference?
Thanks! Jilayne
On 10/17/22 11:41 AM, Jerry James wrote:
I just ran rpmlint over a package under the OFL-1.1-RFN license, with the rpmlint-fedora-license-data package installed. I got "W: invalid-license OFL-1.1-RFN". I undertook a search on the allowed [1] and not allowed [2] license pages. Only "OFL-1.1" appears anywhere, under the "All licenses" section of [1]. (And, faithfully reproducing this, "OFL-1.1" is the only OFL* license that appears in the rpmlint-fedora-license-data package.)
The underlying license data [3] from which [1] and [2] are generated lists all of OFL-1.0, OFL-1.0-RFN, OFL-1.0-no-RFN, OFL-1.1, OFL-1.1-RFN, and OFL-1.1-no-RFN. Why aren't the other licenses showing up on [1] and in rpmlint-fedora-license-data? Is it because "OFL-1.1" is the only one of the six that has a "Y" in both the "OSI?" and "FSFLibre?" columns of licenses.md? If so, what does that imply about the status of the other 5 licenses for Fedora?
References: [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ [3] https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 12:06 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
Could you add the package name in that issue for reference?
Done, and thank you for the quick response.
What is licenses.md and if it's Fedora-specific why is it bothering to track whether something is FSFLibre or OSI-approved? As we explain in Fedora legal documentation, Fedora license allowability is not dependent on either FSF or OSI approval or opinion.
Richard
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 2:14 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Jerry,
Good catch! I think what may have happened is that OFL-1.1 was on the Fedora allowed-fonts list for some time and mapped to SPDX. But more recently, SPDX added the additional identifiers related to reserved font names to capture when that is explicitly triggered or not.
So, it's a matter of Fedora now reviewing those explicit scenarios and adding those ids to the data. I've added an issue to this end here: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/81
Could you add the package name in that issue for reference?
Thanks! Jilayne
On 10/17/22 11:41 AM, Jerry James wrote:
I just ran rpmlint over a package under the OFL-1.1-RFN license, with the rpmlint-fedora-license-data package installed. I got "W: invalid-license OFL-1.1-RFN". I undertook a search on the allowed [1] and not allowed [2] license pages. Only "OFL-1.1" appears anywhere, under the "All licenses" section of [1]. (And, faithfully reproducing this, "OFL-1.1" is the only OFL* license that appears in the rpmlint-fedora-license-data package.)
The underlying license data [3] from which [1] and [2] are generated lists all of OFL-1.0, OFL-1.0-RFN, OFL-1.0-no-RFN, OFL-1.1, OFL-1.1-RFN, and OFL-1.1-no-RFN. Why aren't the other licenses showing up on [1] and in rpmlint-fedora-license-data? Is it because "OFL-1.1" is the only one of the six that has a "Y" in both the "OSI?" and "FSFLibre?" columns of licenses.md? If so, what does that imply about the status of the other 5 licenses for Fedora?
References: [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ [3] https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 12:20 PM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
What is licenses.md and if it's Fedora-specific why is it bothering to track whether something is FSFLibre or OSI-approved? As we explain in Fedora legal documentation, Fedora license allowability is not dependent on either FSF or OSI approval or opinion.
I wasn't looking at the repository I thought I was looking at. I was referring to this file:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-data/blob/master/licenses.md
Sorry for the noise. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/
-
Jerry James -
Jilayne Lovejoy -
Richard Fontana