On 2/22/22 11:32 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:29 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you Richard. Is there an "Accepted Licenses" page for RHEL?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:40 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 9:52 PM Justin Zobel <justin.zobel@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 6:49 PM Justin Zobel <justin.zobel@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
--
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
