On Sun, Jul 31, 2022, 11:43 AM Ralf Corsépius <rc040...@freenet.de> wrote:
> > > Am 31.07.22 um 18:57 schrieb Richard Fontana: > > There are so few non-legacy, today-commonly-used, > > generally-accepted-as-FOSS licenses that are not viewed as > > GPLv3-compatible that I think it might be better for Ansible to just > > list those (the only one I can think of is EPL-2.0), or to list a > > small set of recommended/acceptable commonly-used FOSS licenses. > I do not agree with this view and consider this decision not to be helpful. > > These licenses might not be "commonly used", but if they are used, these > are the controversal ones, that need to be looked into, exactly because > they "not commonly used". > > Provocant question: Do you want contributors to contact redhat-legal in > such cases, as we were required to do in the early days of Fedora? > > To me, this reads as a pretty nasty regression in Fedora's workflow, > which should be reconsidered/reverted. > I agree as well. I think it's a seriously bad idea to remove that guidance. Additionally, the historical responsiveness of Legal has been awful and effectively stopped contributors from doing things, including bringing in useful new software. I'd rather have guidance in place to continue to minimize the need to poke Legal. >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
