On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 01:37:04PM +0100, Rafael Epplée wrote: > > [...snipping thread...] > > Okay, I think we agree on all important points here, and I think we have a > solid plan for fixing the issues you brought up as well as a good long-term > vision. > > The one thing I'd like to discuss further is the interim solution we'll put > in place. If I've understood correctly, the plan is to put an unmodified > 0BSD license text into either some, or all repositories. > > If we put the license into all repositories, but leave out the interim > statement which clarifies that this license only applies to certain files, > this could be interpreted as the license covering all files in each repo, > including patches. We have explicitly excluded these files from the > licensing notification mails we sent out, so this might be problematic in > various ways.
This is not ideal, but the RFC clearly states these files are not covered by the license, both with the old text and my proposal. I don't think this is problematic as the LICENSE text in the repository is a convention by the FOSS community, and does not necessarily on it's own imply anything legally binding. We are amending the RFC to be clear, and we are including statements in our official communication about it. It is quite clearly communicated what does and doesn't apply here. > If we put the license into only those repositories that don't contain > patches, we won't completely remove the legal uncertainties surrounding > package source licensing, and will only remove those uncertainties once the > REUSE RFC has been implemented. > > This is why I agree with kpcyrd that the additional statement is not only > cruft but serves a necessary purpose. If just adding a notice in the repository counts as valid declaration, pointing at the RFC text should be equally valid as well? > Maybe we can find another interim solution to exclude patches from the new > license that's easier to remove when a REUSE.toml file is introduced, e.g. a > separate file containing only the additional statement? Should this be figured out as part of the RFC40 amendments, or the REUSE RFC? -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
