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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:08 PM Justin Zobel <justin.zobel@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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
