Requirement copyright notices appear to be missing

It seems that discussion.fedoraproject.org distributes some Javascript libraries under open-source licenses, but fails to provide the required notices:

Examples appear to be:

A full list is difficult to obtain due to the script obfuscation.

1 Like

This is an issue with Discourse as a whole. This is one of many things that I
would consider to be a disadvantage of using this software.

IANAL, far from it. However if you still believe this is a concern, you should bring it to the attention of Fedora Legal so they can advise and we can get the situation corrected.

It’s not an issue with the Fedora instance specifically. See my previous post.
It’s an issue with Discourse, which has not been resolved. We don’t even know
what all is used in Discourse, so we couldn’t fix it ourselves if we wanted
to.

John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity

John, see my previous post. We are not lawyers. That is why we have Fedora Legal. If you believe that Fedora has a legal exposure open a ticket with Fedora Legal.

Again, there’s nothing for us to do about this. This is an issue with
Discourse. Not with Fedora’s running instance, specifically, but with all
deployed Discourse sites that aren’t modified to show proper licensing
notices, if there are any that do that.

John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity

@fweimer I’ve added a “License” entry to the site menu[1] linking to COPYRIGHT.md in the Discourse source code, and I have recommended upstream that Discourse also do this or similar by default.

This file includes both a list of the included Javascript libraries and the MIT license itself.

Sorry it took so long to get to this — does this address your concern?


  1. :menu_bars: at the top right ↩︎

1 Like