On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 2:03 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <[email protected]> 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! _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
