This page describes what constitutes an allowed or not-allowed license for Fedora Linux.
In order to meet the goal of creating a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free and open source software, all software and other content packaged in Fedora Linux must be under licenses determined to be allowed in Fedora, with only limited, conditional exceptions.
Fedora applies different license approval criteria for different categories of material contained in a package. The strictest standards apply to code (corresponding to the basic allowed status), while somewhat relaxed standards apply to other categories: documentation, content, fonts, and firmware.
If a license is listed in the allowed list, then it is allowed in Fedora for the relevant category (allowed, allowed-fonts, etc.) as described below.
If a license is listed in the not-allowed list, then it has already been reviewed and determined to be not-allowed in Fedora Linux. If you think Fedora should make an exception to the designation of a license as not-allowed (for example, a time-limited or package-specific tolerance of the license), you can raise this on the Fedora legal mailing list.
If a license is not listed on any list, then it needs to be reviewed. Please follow the license review process.
Whether a license is allowed or not allowed for Fedora Linux is ultimately determined by the Fedora Council. Today, this decision is normally delegated to members of the Red Hat legal team who are specialists in free software / open source licensing and who are familiar with and supportive of Fedora’s mission and foundations.
A license is allowed if Fedora determines that the license is a free software / open source license. At a high level, the inquiry involves determining whether the license provides software freedom, and making sure that the license does not place burdens on users' exercise of its permissions that are inconsistent with evolving community norms and traditions around what is acceptable in a free software / open source license. See below for more on the history of Fedora licensing policy.
A license that is allowed can be used for anything in a Fedora Linux package, not just code.
Fedora may designate a license as allowed for documentation if it meets the criteria for allowed licenses and it is specifically designed for documentation.
In addition, Fedora classifies the following licenses as allowed for documentation even though they do not meet the criteria for allowed licenses:
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License and its predecessor versions
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License and its predecessor versions
The GNU Free Documentation License version 2.1 and its predecessor versions
The Open Publication License v1.0, provided that no Section VI "license options" are elected
|We plan to reclassify the Open Publication License (SPDX: OPUBL-1.0) as not-allowed with a usage exception allowing it to be used for documentation provided that no "options" are elected.|
“Content” means any material that is not code, documentation, fonts or firmware. Examples of content include graphic image files, audio files, nonfunctional data sets, and metainfo.xml files.
Fedora may designate a license as allowed for content if it meets the criteria for allowed licenses with the following exceptions:
The license may restrict or prohibit modification
The license may say that it does not cover patents or grant any patent licenses
Fedora may designate a license as allowed for fonts if it meets the criteria for allowed licenses with the following exception:
The license may contain a nominal prohibition on resale or distribution in isolation
A good example of a "nominal prohibition on resale or distribution in isolation" is found in the following condition in the SIL Open Font License 1.1:
Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.
This prohibition would not be acceptable in a license applicable to code. (Two licenses on the not-allowed list, the Sun RPC license and the Artistic License 1.0 as used by Perl 5, contain prohibitions of this type.) The prohibition is "nominal" because it has been asserted that one can get around it by bundling a trivial 'Hello world' program with the fonts.
Some applications, drivers, and hardware require binary firmware images to boot Fedora or function properly. Fedora permits inclusion of these files as long as they meet the following license and technical requirements:
Fedora may designate a license as allowed for firmware if it meets the criteria for allowed licenses with the following exceptions:
The license may prohibit modification, reverse engineering, disassembly or decompilation
The license may require that the firmware be used only in conjunction with specified hardware
The license may require that the firmware be redistributed only as incorporated in the redistributor’s product (or as a maintenance update for existing end users of the redistributor’s product)
This may be limited further to those products of the redistributor that support or contain the hardware associated with the licensed firmware
The license may require the redistributor to pass on or impose conditions on users that are no more restrictive than those authorized by Fedora itself with respect to firmware licenses, as described here
While these technical requirements have nothing to do with licensing, they are included here for convenience.
The files must be non-executable within the Fedora operating system context (note: this means that the files cannot run on their own, not that they are just chmod -x)
The files must not be libraries, within the Fedora operating system context
The files must be standalone, not embedded in executable or library code (within the Fedora operating system context)
The files must be necessary for the functionality of open source code being included in Fedora or to enable Fedora to boot on a specific device, where no other reliable and supported mechanisms exist
Any license that does not meet the criteria above for allowed licenses (including allowed for a specific category) is not-allowed.
While Fedora aims for stability in its license classifications, they have never been set in stone. Fedora’s treatment of a particular license or license type will change as community standards and expectations around acceptable licensing evolve or as new issues and concerns come to light. This is most likely to involve an allowed license being reclassified as not-allowed. When this sort of reclassification is done, we will try to minimize disruption, including by making use of appropriate usage exceptions for licenses no longer classified as allowed.
Over several decades, norms concerning acceptable standards for software (and other content) licensing developed out of communities associated with free software and open source projects. Fedora builds upon and contributes to the development of this community tradition. Most of the philosophical and practical groundwork for Fedora’s policies on licensing was developed over many years by Tom 'spot' Callaway, often working in collaboration with members of Red Hat’s legal team.
The two most influential efforts to distill FOSS licensing norms are the Free Software Foundation’s maintenance and interpretation of the Free Software Definition, and the Open Source Initiative’s maintenance and interpretation of the Open Source Definition. For much of its earlier history, Fedora tended to regard the FSF’s interpretation as highly authoritative, while viewing the OSI’s license review decisions with greater skepticism. However, even at the high point of that period of skepticism, Fedora treated the OSD and OSI decisions as one source of persuasive authority. Fedora has also sometimes considered the decisions of other major community Linux distributions and other important community efforts to define and apply software freedom-related legal norms. Fedora’s license approval decisions are both principled and pragmatic.
Out of necessity, Fedora has passed judgment on many licenses never considered by the FSF or the OSI. In a small number of cases, Fedora has disagreed with decisions of the FSF and OSI regarding whether particular licenses are FOSS. Over time, Fedora has built up an informal body of interpretation and policymaking regarding free/open licensing which has itself influenced the larger FOSS community outside of Fedora.