On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 2:09 PM Richard Fontana <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 1:58 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > How to request review of a new license > > If you find a license for a package you want to include in Fedora and that > > license is not listed in the Fedora License Data, you can submit it for > > review as follows: > > > > Note: you must be a Fedora contributer and become part of the Fedora Gitlab > > group. See LINK for more on how to become a Fedora contributor. > > I can sort of see why you'd want the submitter to be a Fedora > contributor (I assume that means a Fedora account holder) but is it > necessary to become part of the Fedora Gitlab group just to submit an > issue? >
You're forced to sign in with FAS when you interact with the gitlab.com/fedora group. > > 1) Create a new issue in the Fedora License Data repo with the following > > information: license name, link to text of license, package name and link, > > why you want to include it in Fedora, whether it is on the SPDX License > > List, and the SPDX expression as applicable (see below for hints on > > determining if a license text matches a license on the SPDX License List) > > Is "why you want to include it in Fedora" necessary? If they are > linking to a package, presumably that's either an existing Fedora > package (i.e., the license *should* have been approved but never was, > or was approved based on outdated criteria and methodology) or a > proposed Fedora package. So the rationale for inclusion should always > be obvious and not require any further justification. > I agree, this is not necessary. Nobody would be making a request if it wasn't needed already. > > ` If the license is not on the SPDX License List, then submit the license > > to the to the SPDX-legal team at > > https://tools.spdx.org/app/submit_new_license/. In addition to the required > > information, include a note that it is under review for Fedora and a link > > to the related Fedora License Data Gitlab issue. > > Shouldn't this step depend on the license actually being approved by > Fedora first? I guess that's more of an SPDX question than a Fedora > question. Do you want people to be submitting licenses to SPDX even if > the end result might be that Fedora classifies it as "not allowed"? Of > course the license might still meet SPDX's inclusion guidelines. > It should be approved by Fedora with a provisional identifier, and that identifier should be forwarded to SPDX. We don't want to have Fedora wait on SPDX. -- 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
