On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 08:59:09AM +0200, Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:

Am Donnerstag, den 25.06.2020, 21:09 +0200 schrieb Björn 'besser82' Esser:

...

Am Mittwoch, den 24.06.2020, 22:53 +0200 schrieb Björn 'besser82' Esser:

...

Hello,

I wanted to ask in general whether the EUPL v1.2 [1,2] is an acceptable license for Fedora.

If it is acceptable, can we please list it in the wiki as a "good license", please?

Thanks Björn

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017D0863 [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/EUPL-1.2

To make this a bit more precise:

My question is about a package review [1].

The package is quite useful for people that have German identification documents and want to use online services offered by Germany's goverment.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851205

After digging on the internet a bit, I found the FSF consideres this license to be free. [1,2]

@spot: Can you please confirm, that this means the EUPL 1.2 license is to be considered free by means of "good licensing" according to the statues of the Fedora Project?

This is now also blocking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868602, which we need handle ASAP for the PARSEC Change in F33.

Zbyszek

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 08:34:27AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:

Zbigniew,

This looks like an acceptable license, I'm just checking with the lawyers for final confirmation. In the meantime, please proceed with the rest of the review as if it's approved and I'll get a final resolution ASAP.

Thanks! I opened https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/pull-request/114#request_diff to be ready for when the confirmation comes in.

Zbyszek

Confirming EUPL 1.2 is "good".

Just a short followup question about the EUPL 1.2 license:

Is it enough, if the upstream author(s) just include their native language version of the EUPL 1.2 license text, or do we explicitly need the english version of the license text available for Fedora packaging?

The European Community lists about two dozend different language versions of the license, which are all considered official [1].

Thanks Björn

[1] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/eupl-text-eupl-12

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:28 AM Justin W. Flory (he/him) jflory7@gmail.com wrote:

I presume English is the preferred language for licenses.

Since the other languages of the license are recognized as official, I think it is sufficient to standardize on one language and to use other translations as a legal reference if it ever mattered for international jurisdiction (?).

Agreed. From a standpoint of "compliance with the license", shipping what the upstream provides is fine. However, since an official English version is available (as opposed to a translation), we should provide that as a service to our user and contributor communities. For better or worse, we are an English-language project.

For the sake of not having to remove a file from the upstream package in the build process, I don't see an issue with providing the English version _in addition to_ the language version used upstream.