On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Looking at the Factual Information License, I've got some concerns. I > asked Red Hat Legal to take a look at it, and this was their reply: > > I think the problem with this one is that the definition of "Use" > introduces some > fundamental uncertainty. If it really means "any act that is > restricted by copyright", and > this license does seem to be trying to be a copyright license, then > there ought to be no > problem, since "Use" should encompass any act of modification that is > restricted by > applicable copyright -- e.g. rights to create derivative works under > U.S. copyright law. > However, then they bother to say "modifying the Work as may be > technically necessary > to use it in a different mode or format". That sounds like they might > be implying that > broader acts of modification are not within the scope of "Use", despite > the apparent > reach of the first part of the definition. And if "Use" does indeed > encompass only a > proper subset of copyright-law modification acts, then it would be > non-free. While in > general that wouldn't necessarily be true, but here the narrow > interpretation suggests it > is non-free because the apparently-granted modification rights are too > limited. > > In addition, I'm concerned that there does not appear to be any explicit > grant of permission to redistribute content under the Factual > Information License without restriction. > > (RH Legal is still looking at the ODBL, they should have comments on > that later, which I will pass along). I sent these remarks to the ODC-discuss ML. They have just posted this in reply: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-March/000066.html They are asking for clarifications. Regards. Bye, Andrea. _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
