re: CC IGO. That's fair to wait for it to appear in a real case scenario. I don't have an immediate example although I often lift CC BY/BY-SA licensed content from and into Fedora, for use cases like documentation where Content licenses show up more often. I was recently in a conversation elsewhere about this license family, so I thought I'd ask a naïve question here. :-) -- Cheers, Justin W. Flory (he/him) || 🔗 jwf.io TZ=America/New_York 🕖 ------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, June 29th, 2022 at 01:29, Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > My view - Fedora shouldn't at this point make classifications on > licenses in advance of their foreseeable inclusion in an actual > proposed or existing package in Fedora. (Historically, Fedora did > this, possibly even with respect to some of the Creative Commons > licenses.) > > Richard > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:30 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > Hi Justin, > > > > Are you asking for the review of these b/c there is a package to be included in Fedora that uses these licenses? > > > > Thanks, > > Jilayne > > > > On 6/28/22 3:57 PM, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote: > > > > Hey all, > > > > Since Creative Commons licenses are already coming up, how is the Creative Commons IGO license family classified in Fedora? > > > > I didn't notice these licenses in the Licenses wiki page. They are distinctly different from other Creative Commons licenses and to the best of my knowledge, they are not superseded by the 4.0 family of Creative Commons licenses. I mention it here because if we are looking at other Creative Commons license families, it would be good to clarify how Fedora views the IGO family too. For context, some UN agencies are considering the IGO family of licenses as a default open source license for work created by public servants, so it isn't impossible to see CC IGO content working its way into Fedora at some point. > > > > The key distinction made in the IGO licenses from other CC licenses is around mediation and arbitration for resolving legal disputes. > > > > * https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ > > * https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/ > > * https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/igo/ > > * https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/ > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > Justin W. Flory (he/him) || 🔗 jwf.io > > TZ=America/New_York 🕖 > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > On Tuesday, June 28th, 2022 at 15:49, Michel Alexandre Salim michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 > > > > 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? > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Michel Alexandre Salim > > identities: > > https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > --
Attachment:
publickey - foss@jwf.io - 0x570E854F.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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
