On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 4:01 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@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
