Bug 1836387

Summary: Unlicense wrongly showing up in the list of acceptable licences
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Thorsten Glaser <tg>
Component: distributionAssignee: Tom "spot" Callaway <spot>
Status: ASSIGNED --- QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 33CC: bcotton, kevin, nman64, rfontana, web-members
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Thorsten Glaser 2020-05-15 18:46:28 UTC
Pamela Chestek dixit:

>Fedora considers it acceptable:

The “Unlicense” is a PD dedication, not a copyright licence. If it is even valid in any country it isn’t valid in many others, and these are impossible in, for example, most of the EU. There’s currently a discussion on the OSI mailing lists (first license-discuss, then license-review), if you’re interested in more details.

I request you to remove it from the list of acceptable licences.

Thanks in advance,

Comment 1 Ben Cotton 2020-05-15 19:06:08 UTC
Assigning to the Legal contact.

Comment 2 Ben Cotton 2020-08-11 13:31:21 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 33 development cycle.
Changing version to 33.