Hi Richard, Jilayne, Agreed on both (and uh, turns out the reply got straight to my inbox and I didn't get a duplicate copy via the list, which is why I didn't initially see this). We can do a merge request to add the proper CC-PDDC license and see what upstream says. For adding CC-PDDC to the good license list - how long would it take? Thanks, Michel On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 01:51 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > 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 > -- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 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
