Also: someone sufficiently motivated could try to get the upstream maintainer to replace the "No known copyright" statement with the actual text of CC-PDDC in the interest of improving license information upstream. :-) - Richard On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 1:47 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This is actually slightly unclear because what the maintainer seems to > have been done (at quick glance) is (1) replace the Apache License 2.0 > with a "No known copyright" statement in a LICENSE file (containing no > other text) and (2) simultaneously replace "MIT/Apache-2.0" with > "CC-PDDC" in the Cargo.toml file. > > CC-PDDC actually contemplates being used by either a 'Dedicator' or a > 'Certifier' and you could sort of see the "No known copyright" > statement as being in line with being a "Certifier", but I assume the > maintainer is the author and saw themselves as a 'Dedicator'. I assume > that there are no other authors or all authors have agreed to this > change. (Ideally, someone would look into that, but it's generally > impractical to do so.) > > Anyway, it's clear that this is okay for Fedora despite the ambiguity > and under the Callaway notation system would presumably be designated > as "Public Domain" in the license tag. With the future switch to SPDX > identifiers, I'm not sure how we'd want to deal with this in the > license tag. I'd probably say it's reasonable to have the license tag > say CC-PDDC (assuming that gets added to the Fedora allowed license > list). > > One side comment on CC0: We probably want to reclassify CC0 as not > allowed for code by default because of the "no patent rights are > granted" clause, an issue not present in CC-PDDC. This may require > granting exceptions to existing packages that are using CC0 for code. > Jilayne and I were recently discussing the possible need for either an > "allowed-conditional" status or a process for giving specific packages > exceptions that allow them to include code/content under non-allowed > licenses. I may raise that topic in a separate thread. > > Richard > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:24 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Michel, > > > > > > On 6/28/22 1:49 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > During the review of rust-pwd (needed as a new dependency for rust-nu- > > path): > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2101580 > > > > it came to light that the upstream Rust crate declares the license to > > be CC-PDDC: https://spdx.org/licenses/preview/CC-PDDC.html > > > > The change itself happened after the previous patch release (1.3.0) and > > is released in the latest 1.3.1: > > > > https://gitlab.com/pwoolcoc/pwd/-/commit/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27faa44fd > > > > side note, but I must say that the change seems to come out of no where and they did not include a copy of the CC-PDDC in the repo, which is also odd. I hope there is only the one author of this code! > > > > Two questions here: > > - can we treat CC-PDDC as basically Public Domain, which is approved by > > Fedora per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses > > - if not, can we use the Git commit history to assume that the intent > > is to make this public domain? > > > > Given we are on the eave (ish) of adopting SPDX identifiers and "Public Domain" represents a Fedora category which will later need to be manually reviewed to be updated to an SPDX id... I'd say it'd be preferable to review the CC-PDDC as to whether it should be allowed for Fedora based and then, if so, then add it to the Fedora allowed list and use the SPDX id :) > > > > I'll give my two cents on that: given that it's a public domain dedication and also that CC0-1.0 is already allowed (which this pre-dated), I would say it meets the free/open criteria for Fedora and should be allowed for use in Fedora. > > > > Richard - you wanna chime in? > > > > Jilayne > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
