Ahh OK. Well, it would make sense to have a combined list. Hopefully, someone on the Fedora side can give me the all OK to include the package based on RHEL's inclusion policy.
And I just realised I hit reply instead of reply-all on the email again.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:55 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
In theory, the Fedora list is the RHEL list, but some time ago Red Hat started supplementing it internally with another "list" (or compiled information) resulting from review of results of certain scanning tools on RHEL package source code. That "list" is not currently public information. Our current plan is to essentially merge the two license approval efforts so that there is one single public list of approved and unapproved licenses. But it will take some time to undertake the various steps for getting there.
Richard
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 5:14 PM Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Richard. Is there an "Accepted Licenses" page for RHEL?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:40 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 9:52 PM Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com
wrote:
Thank you for these insights. Are you able to provide a link to the
RHEL review of ODbL for the Fedora license team to refer to in their review process?
Unfortunately in this case there really isn't anything to link to apart from a snarky comment by me about how lengthy the license is :-)
Richard
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 11:52 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 6:49 PM Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Team,
I've just begun packaging for Fedora and of course, I happen to
choose one with a license that needs querying.
The Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) is for database
usage in the kpublictransport KDE library. It is used for access to OpenStreetMap via the KTrip application designed to aid users in navigating via public transport.
From the OpenStreetMap Copyright page on their website: OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under the Open Data Commons
Open Database License (ODbL) by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF).
Open Database License: https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ Open Street Map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright KDE Source Repository:
https://invent.kde.org/libraries/kpublictransport/
Fedora Source Repository:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kpublictransport/
I would like to know if this license is acceptable to Fedora.
This is somewhat interesting as it is the first case I can think of where a license that Red Hat has specifically reviewed internally for inclusion in Red Hat Enterprise Linux has at a later time come up for a decision in Fedora.
We actually approved ODBL for RHEL last year, and I think if we had our contemplated merging of RHEL license review and Fedora license review in place, it would just end up on the "good" list, but given that the new process is not yet established it would probably be a good idea to do another review now that it has come up for Fedora.
Richard
--
I'm not sure who is authorized to be the "someone on the Fedora side" to give the OK, but I had a (re)read of the license and here are a few thoughts:
I think it meets the concept of free/open for Fedora as I understand it. The fact that it's been okay'd for inclusion in RHEL supports this, as I think the criteria for Fedora and RHEL (and any Red Hat open source project or product, perhaps?) is or should be aligned.
The only things that caught my attention in the license (other than length and thoroughness) are: - as per section 2.3(b) the license does not cover any patents over the Content or the Database I think this is ok, as it's similar to the CC licenses (which are approved) and I don't really see how patents would apply here anyway
- it's interesting that the license makes clear it's for the database, but does not cover the copyright in the Contents independent of this Database. I don't think this is a factor in terms of the free/open for Fedora determination, but just an interesting drafting clarification, which I suppose makes sense when one thinks about it, but leaves open the question as to how the Contents are licensed? I'm guessing that may not be specifically addressed for many databases.
Jilayne (also a member of Red Hat legal, in case that was not obvious/known)
On 2/15/22 3:34 PM, Justin Zobel wrote:
Ahh OK. Well, it would make sense to have a combined list. Hopefully, someone on the Fedora side can give me the all OK to include the package based on RHEL's inclusion policy.
And I just realised I hit reply instead of reply-all on the email again.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:55 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
In theory, the Fedora list is the RHEL list, but some time ago Red Hat started supplementing it internally with another "list" (or compiled information) resulting from review of results of certain scanning tools on RHEL package source code. That "list" is not currently public information. Our current plan is to essentially merge the two license approval efforts so that there is one single public list of approved and unapproved licenses. But it will take some time to undertake the various steps for getting there. Richard On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 5:14 PM Justin Zobel <justin.zobel@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thank you Richard. Is there an "Accepted Licenses" page for RHEL? > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:40 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 9:52 PM Justin Zobel <justin.zobel@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Thank you for these insights. Are you able to provide a link to the RHEL review of ODbL for the Fedora license team to refer to in their review process? >> >> Unfortunately in this case there really isn't anything to link to >> apart from a snarky comment by me about how lengthy the license is :-) >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 11:52 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 6:49 PM Justin Zobel <justin.zobel@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Hi Team, >> >> > >> >> > I've just begun packaging for Fedora and of course, I happen to choose one with a license that needs querying. >> >> > >> >> > The Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) is for database usage in the kpublictransport KDE library. It is used for access to OpenStreetMap via the KTrip application designed to aid users in navigating via public transport. >> >> > >> >> > From the OpenStreetMap Copyright page on their website: >> >> > OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). >> >> > >> >> > Open Database License: https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ >> >> > Open Street Map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright >> >> > KDE Source Repository: https://invent.kde.org/libraries/kpublictransport/ >> >> > Fedora Source Repository: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kpublictransport/ >> >> > >> >> > I would like to know if this license is acceptable to Fedora. >> >> >> >> This is somewhat interesting as it is the first case I can think of >> >> where a license that Red Hat has specifically reviewed internally for >> >> inclusion in Red Hat Enterprise Linux has at a later time come up for >> >> a decision in Fedora. >> >> >> >> We actually approved ODBL for RHEL last year, and I think if we had >> >> our contemplated merging of RHEL license review and Fedora license >> >> review in place, it would just end up on the "good" list, but given >> >> that the new process is not yet established it would probably be a >> >> good idea to do another review now that it has come up for Fedora. >> >> >> >> Richard >> >> >> --
legal mailing list --legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:29 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
I'm not sure who is authorized to be the "someone on the Fedora side" to give the OK, but I had a (re)read of the license and here are a few thoughts:
I think it meets the concept of free/open for Fedora as I understand it. The fact that it's been okay'd for inclusion in RHEL supports this, as I think the criteria for Fedora and RHEL (and any Red Hat open source project or product, perhaps?) is or should be aligned.
We need a license tag and the entry updated in the Licensing:Main wiki page that packagers reference to indicate this license is acceptable for Fedora.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:29 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
I'm not sure who is authorized to be the "someone on the Fedora side" to give the OK, but I had a (re)read of the license and here are a few thoughts:
I think it meets the concept of free/open for Fedora as I understand it. The fact that it's been okay'd for inclusion in RHEL supports this, as I think the criteria for Fedora and RHEL (and any Red Hat open source project or product, perhaps?) is or should be aligned.
The only things that caught my attention in the license (other than length and thoroughness) are:
- as per section 2.3(b) the license does not cover any patents over the Content or the Database
I think this is ok, as it's similar to the CC licenses (which are approved) and I don't really see how patents would apply here anyway
- it's interesting that the license makes clear it's for the database, but does not cover the copyright in the Contents independent of this Database.
I don't think this is a factor in terms of the free/open for Fedora determination, but just an interesting drafting clarification, which I suppose makes sense when one thinks about it, but leaves open the question as to how the Contents are licensed? I'm guessing that may not be specifically addressed for many databases.
Hmm, yes it does. I guess the assumption is that in many cases the "Contents" won't be individually copyrightable.
To be clear on something I think is rather important since I was the one who brought up RHEL: the fact that it has been okay'd for inclusion in RHEL should not influence the decision here. Fedora has, I think, never had a "defer to RHEL" policy on licenses. It's really the other way around.
But I guess this can be approved specifically as a content license. It's certainly a flawed license and I don't think it meets Fedora's free/open criteria in a more general sense.
Richard
Jilayne (also a member of Red Hat legal, in case that was not obvious/known)
On 2/15/22 3:34 PM, Justin Zobel wrote:
Ahh OK. Well, it would make sense to have a combined list. Hopefully, someone on the Fedora side can give me the all OK to include the package based on RHEL's inclusion policy.
And I just realised I hit reply instead of reply-all on the email again.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:55 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
In theory, the Fedora list is the RHEL list, but some time ago Red Hat started supplementing it internally with another "list" (or compiled information) resulting from review of results of certain scanning tools on RHEL package source code. That "list" is not currently public information. Our current plan is to essentially merge the two license approval efforts so that there is one single public list of approved and unapproved licenses. But it will take some time to undertake the various steps for getting there.
Richard
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 5:14 PM Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Richard. Is there an "Accepted Licenses" page for RHEL?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:40 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 9:52 PM Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for these insights. Are you able to provide a link to the RHEL review of ODbL for the Fedora license team to refer to in their review process?
Unfortunately in this case there really isn't anything to link to apart from a snarky comment by me about how lengthy the license is :-)
Richard
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 11:52 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 6:49 PM Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi Team, > > I've just begun packaging for Fedora and of course, I happen to choose one with a license that needs querying. > > The Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) is for database usage in the kpublictransport KDE library. It is used for access to OpenStreetMap via the KTrip application designed to aid users in navigating via public transport. > > From the OpenStreetMap Copyright page on their website: > OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). > > Open Database License: https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ > Open Street Map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright > KDE Source Repository: https://invent.kde.org/libraries/kpublictransport/ > Fedora Source Repository: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kpublictransport/ > > I would like to know if this license is acceptable to Fedora.
This is somewhat interesting as it is the first case I can think of where a license that Red Hat has specifically reviewed internally for inclusion in Red Hat Enterprise Linux has at a later time come up for a decision in Fedora.
We actually approved ODBL for RHEL last year, and I think if we had our contemplated merging of RHEL license review and Fedora license review in place, it would just end up on the "good" list, but given that the new process is not yet established it would probably be a good idea to do another review now that it has come up for Fedora.
Richard
--
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
--
On 2/22/22 11:32 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:29 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
I'm not sure who is authorized to be the "someone on the Fedora side" to give the OK, but I had a (re)read of the license and here are a few thoughts:
I think it meets the concept of free/open for Fedora as I understand it. The fact that it's been okay'd for inclusion in RHEL supports this, as I think the criteria for Fedora and RHEL (and any Red Hat open source project or product, perhaps?) is or should be aligned.
The only things that caught my attention in the license (other than length and thoroughness) are:
- as per section 2.3(b) the license does not cover any patents over the Content or the Database
I think this is ok, as it's similar to the CC licenses (which are approved) and I don't really see how patents would apply here anyway
- it's interesting that the license makes clear it's for the database, but does not cover the copyright in the Contents independent of this Database.
I don't think this is a factor in terms of the free/open for Fedora determination, but just an interesting drafting clarification, which I suppose makes sense when one thinks about it, but leaves open the question as to how the Contents are licensed? I'm guessing that may not be specifically addressed for many databases.
Hmm, yes it does. I guess the assumption is that in many cases the "Contents" won't be individually copyrightable.
there is that possibility too.
To be clear on something I think is rather important since I was the one who brought up RHEL: the fact that it has been okay'd for inclusion in RHEL should not influence the decision here. Fedora has, I think, never had a "defer to RHEL" policy on licenses. It's really the other way around.
true that, good clarification
But I guess this can be approved specifically as a content license. It's certainly a flawed license and I don't think it meets Fedora's free/open criteria in a more general sense.
so to quote your recent re-draft, it would go in the bucket of:
3. Licenses for Content
“Content” means any material that is not code, documentation, fonts or binary firmware.
In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for content if it restricts or prohibits modification but otherwise meets the standards for good licenses for code.
Richard
Jilayne (also a member of Red Hat legal, in case that was not obvious/known)
On 2/15/22 3:34 PM, Justin Zobel wrote:
Ahh OK. Well, it would make sense to have a combined list. Hopefully, someone on the Fedora side can give me the all OK to include the package based on RHEL's inclusion policy.
And I just realised I hit reply instead of reply-all on the email again.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:55 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
In theory, the Fedora list is the RHEL list, but some time ago Red Hat started supplementing it internally with another "list" (or compiled information) resulting from review of results of certain scanning tools on RHEL package source code. That "list" is not currently public information. Our current plan is to essentially merge the two license approval efforts so that there is one single public list of approved and unapproved licenses. But it will take some time to undertake the various steps for getting there.
Richard
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 5:14 PM Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Richard. Is there an "Accepted Licenses" page for RHEL?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:40 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 9:52 PM Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for these insights. Are you able to provide a link to the RHEL review of ODbL for the Fedora license team to refer to in their review process?
Unfortunately in this case there really isn't anything to link to apart from a snarky comment by me about how lengthy the license is :-)
Richard
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 11:52 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 6:49 PM Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com wrote: >> Hi Team, >> >> I've just begun packaging for Fedora and of course, I happen to choose one with a license that needs querying. >> >> The Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) is for database usage in the kpublictransport KDE library. It is used for access to OpenStreetMap via the KTrip application designed to aid users in navigating via public transport. >> >> From the OpenStreetMap Copyright page on their website: >> OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). >> >> Open Database License: https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ >> Open Street Map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright >> KDE Source Repository: https://invent.kde.org/libraries/kpublictransport/ >> Fedora Source Repository: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kpublictransport/ >> >> I would like to know if this license is acceptable to Fedora. > This is somewhat interesting as it is the first case I can think of > where a license that Red Hat has specifically reviewed internally for > inclusion in Red Hat Enterprise Linux has at a later time come up for > a decision in Fedora. > > We actually approved ODBL for RHEL last year, and I think if we had > our contemplated merging of RHEL license review and Fedora license > review in place, it would just end up on the "good" list, but given > that the new process is not yet established it would probably be a > good idea to do another review now that it has come up for Fedora. > > Richard >
--
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
--
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 4:01 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
[JL wrote:]
The only things that caught my attention in the license (other than length and thoroughness) are:
- as per section 2.3(b) the license does not cover any patents over the Content or the Database
I think this is ok, as it's similar to the CC licenses (which are approved) and I don't really see how patents would apply here anyway
[RF wrote:]
But I guess this can be approved specifically as a content license. It's certainly a flawed license and I don't think it meets Fedora's free/open criteria in a more general sense.
[JL wrote:]
so to quote your recent re-draft, it would go in the bucket of:
- Licenses for Content
“Content” means any material that is not code, documentation, fonts or binary firmware.
In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for content if it restricts or prohibits modification but otherwise meets the standards for good licenses for code.
Yes, but prompted by this license (and your comment on the patent issue) I'm thinking we should revise that description -- I will reply to the thread where I posted the draft category descriptions.
Richard
Hi Everyone,
Hope you all had a great weekend.
Just following up to see if there has been an official determination on the inclusion of this license in Fedora's accepted license list?
Regards,
Justin
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 2:20 PM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 4:01 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
[JL wrote:]
The only things that caught my attention in the license (other than
length and thoroughness) are:
- as per section 2.3(b) the license does not cover any patents over
the Content or the Database
I think this is ok, as it's similar to the CC licenses (which are
approved) and I don't really see how patents would apply here anyway
[RF wrote:]
But I guess this can be approved specifically as a content license. It's certainly a flawed license and I don't think it meets Fedora's free/open criteria in a more general sense.
[JL wrote:]
so to quote your recent re-draft, it would go in the bucket of:
- Licenses for Content
“Content” means any material that is not code, documentation, fonts or binary firmware.
In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for content if it restricts or prohibits modification but otherwise meets the standards for good licenses for code.
Yes, but prompted by this license (and your comment on the patent issue) I'm thinking we should revise that description -- I will reply to the thread where I posted the draft category descriptions.
Richard
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:08 PM Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Hope you all had a great weekend.
Just following up to see if there has been an official determination on the inclusion of this license in Fedora's accepted license list?
I am not sure if Fedora has a clear "official" process at the moment (though that is being worked on). I would say though: ODbL should be added as an approved license specifically for content, but given the nature of this license, it should be noted that the elements of the covered dataset also must be under terms acceptable to Fedora. In this case, the OpenStreetMap data meets that standard.
Richard
Regards,
Justin
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 2:20 PM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 4:01 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
[JL wrote:]
The only things that caught my attention in the license (other than length and thoroughness) are:
- as per section 2.3(b) the license does not cover any patents over the Content or the Database
I think this is ok, as it's similar to the CC licenses (which are approved) and I don't really see how patents would apply here anyway
[RF wrote:]
But I guess this can be approved specifically as a content license. It's certainly a flawed license and I don't think it meets Fedora's free/open criteria in a more general sense.
[JL wrote:]
so to quote your recent re-draft, it would go in the bucket of:
- Licenses for Content
“Content” means any material that is not code, documentation, fonts or binary firmware.
In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for content if it restricts or prohibits modification but otherwise meets the standards for good licenses for code.
Yes, but prompted by this license (and your comment on the patent issue) I'm thinking we should revise that description -- I will reply to the thread where I posted the draft category descriptions.
Richard
I guess as far as I understand, the Wiki page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing would be considered the "official" list. So if it's added to that, I'm free to use it :)
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:21 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:08 PM Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Hope you all had a great weekend.
Just following up to see if there has been an official determination on
the inclusion of this license in Fedora's accepted license list?
I am not sure if Fedora has a clear "official" process at the moment (though that is being worked on). I would say though: ODbL should be added as an approved license specifically for content, but given the nature of this license, it should be noted that the elements of the covered dataset also must be under terms acceptable to Fedora. In this case, the OpenStreetMap data meets that standard.
Richard
Regards,
Justin
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 2:20 PM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 4:01 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com
wrote:
[JL wrote:]
The only things that caught my attention in the license (other
than length and thoroughness) are:
- as per section 2.3(b) the license does not cover any patents
over the Content or the Database
I think this is ok, as it's similar to the CC licenses (which are
approved) and I don't really see how patents would apply here anyway
[RF wrote:]
But I guess this can be approved specifically as a content license. It's certainly a flawed license and I don't think it meets Fedora's free/open criteria in a more general sense.
[JL wrote:]
so to quote your recent re-draft, it would go in the bucket of:
- Licenses for Content
“Content” means any material that is not code, documentation, fonts or binary firmware.
In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for content if it restricts or prohibits modification but otherwise meets the standards for good licenses for code.
Yes, but prompted by this license (and your comment on the patent issue) I'm thinking we should revise that description -- I will reply to the thread where I posted the draft category descriptions.
Richard
yes, the wiki page is still the official list until we get the new docs section up and running and the TOML database generating a human-readable list there.
Richard and I have now updated the wiki page accordingly :)
Jilayne
On 2/28/22 4:04 PM, Justin Zobel wrote:
I guess as far as I understand, the Wiki page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing would be considered the "official" list. So if it's added to that, I'm free to use it :)
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:21 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:08 PM Justin Zobel <justin.zobel@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > Hope you all had a great weekend. > > Just following up to see if there has been an official determination on the inclusion of this license in Fedora's accepted license list? I am not sure if Fedora has a clear "official" process at the moment (though that is being worked on). I would say though: ODbL should be added as an approved license specifically for content, but given the nature of this license, it should be noted that the elements of the covered dataset also must be under terms acceptable to Fedora. In this case, the OpenStreetMap data meets that standard. Richard > > Regards, > > Justin > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 2:20 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 4:01 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> [JL wrote:] >> > >> The only things that caught my attention in the license (other than length and thoroughness) are: >> > >> - as per section 2.3(b) the license does not cover any patents over the Content or the Database >> > >> I think this is ok, as it's similar to the CC licenses (which are approved) and I don't really see how patents would apply here anyway >> > >> >> >> [RF wrote:] >> > > But I guess this can be approved specifically as a content license. >> > > It's certainly a flawed license and I don't think it meets Fedora's >> > > free/open criteria in a more general sense. >> >> [JL wrote:] >> > so to quote your recent re-draft, it would go in the bucket of: >> > >> > 3. Licenses for Content >> > >> > “Content” means any material that is not code, documentation, fonts or >> > binary firmware. >> > >> > In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for content if it >> > restricts or prohibits modification but otherwise meets the standards >> > for good licenses for code. >> >> Yes, but prompted by this license (and your comment on the patent >> issue) I'm thinking we should revise that description -- I will reply >> to the thread where I posted the draft category descriptions. >> >> Richard >>
legal mailing list --legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Thanks team!
Just a note, not major, if you can update the " *Last Revised:* Wednesday August 19, 2020" at the top of the page as well, that would be great.
I'll be unsubscribing from the list but I'm always available via email directly if there is any follow up discussion needed.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 4:20 AM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
yes, the wiki page is still the official list until we get the new docs section up and running and the TOML database generating a human-readable list there.
Richard and I have now updated the wiki page accordingly :)
Jilayne
On 2/28/22 4:04 PM, Justin Zobel wrote:
I guess as far as I understand, the Wiki page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing would be considered the "official" list. So if it's added to that, I'm free to use it :)
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:21 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:08 PM Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Hope you all had a great weekend.
Just following up to see if there has been an official determination on
the inclusion of this license in Fedora's accepted license list?
I am not sure if Fedora has a clear "official" process at the moment (though that is being worked on). I would say though: ODbL should be added as an approved license specifically for content, but given the nature of this license, it should be noted that the elements of the covered dataset also must be under terms acceptable to Fedora. In this case, the OpenStreetMap data meets that standard.
Richard
Regards,
Justin
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 2:20 PM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 4:01 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com
wrote:
[JL wrote:]
> The only things that caught my attention in the license (other
than length and thoroughness) are:
> - as per section 2.3(b) the license does not cover any patents
over the Content or the Database
> I think this is ok, as it's similar to the CC licenses (which are
approved) and I don't really see how patents would apply here anyway
>
[RF wrote:]
But I guess this can be approved specifically as a content license. It's certainly a flawed license and I don't think it meets Fedora's free/open criteria in a more general sense.
[JL wrote:]
so to quote your recent re-draft, it would go in the bucket of:
- Licenses for Content
“Content” means any material that is not code, documentation, fonts
or
binary firmware.
In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for content if it restricts or prohibits modification but otherwise meets the standards for good licenses for code.
Yes, but prompted by this license (and your comment on the patent issue) I'm thinking we should revise that description -- I will reply to the thread where I posted the draft category descriptions.
Richard
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
-
Jilayne Lovejoy -
Justin Zobel -
Neal Gompa -
Richard Fontana