Ticket #170 (closed defect: invalid)

Opened 2 years ago

Last modified 2 years ago

Need Guidelines for packages with restrictive trademark licensing

Reported by: toshio Owned by:
Priority: minor Milestone:
Component: Guideline Draft Version:
Keywords: Cc: ilyes, mtasaka
Blocked By: Blocking:

Description

Some packages have assets that are trademarked. Those trademarks may or may not have explicit licenses from upstream. They may or may not have upstreams who have expressed a desire to assert their trademark rights. As packagers start to run across more of these we need to decide whether to package them with the trademarked assets, how to handle acls for the packages, and what additional procedures packagers need to follow.

This hasn't come up to FPC before. It may not be an FPC decision. But we're the next group to meet so I'm opening it here and we can decide whether to handle it, handle part of it, or where to forward it to. Groups to coordinate with (or handle this instead of us) could be Fedora Legal (spot) or FESCo.

I know of three specifics:

Change History

comment:1 follow-up: ↓ 2 Changed 2 years ago by corsepiu

I would propose to reject this ticket, because legal decisions are the FPC's matter.

Independently from this, in my private opinion, all packages provided by fedora must be "free", i.e. copyable, modificable, free for commercial use etc. Restictive trademarks are orthogonal to this,

comment:2 in reply to: ↑ 1 ; follow-up: ↓ 5 Changed 2 years ago by toshio

Replying to corsepiu:

I would propose to reject this ticket, because legal decisions are the FPC's matter.

Did you mean "*not* the FPC's matter"?

If so, that's fine but I would like us to figure out who to send this on to. Since spot's one of the FPC members, it seems like a good place to get feedback from two of the parties and we can decided if we want to send it to FESCo (or the Board.. with your phrasing about packages being copyable, modifyable, and free of use restrictions, it seems less of a technical decision).

comment:3 Changed 2 years ago by ilyes

  • Cc ilyes added

comment:4 Changed 2 years ago by mtasaka

  • Cc mtasaka added

WRT rubygem-passenger, I don't think that status https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696#c129 is enough free, and don't think that this is acceptable on Fedora.

comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 2 years ago by corsepiu

Replying to toshio:

Replying to corsepiu:

I would propose to reject this ticket, because legal decisions are the FPC's matter.

Did you mean "*not* the FPC's matter"?

Sure. Sorry, typo.

If so, that's fine but I would like us to figure out who to send this on to.

IMO, Fedora legal. They should decide whether a package legally complies to the "Fedora freedoms".

comment:6 Changed 2 years ago by spot

  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from new to closed

Fedora Legal should own this. Closing here.

comment:7 Changed 2 years ago by toshio

I've opened a ticket for Fedora Legal -- https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-legal/ticket/16

The legal trac doesn't give read permissions to anonymous users so if you want to follow the ticket please contact spot to be added to the CC list.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.