On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:42 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Open Publication License, v1.0 or later - see > > http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/ > > Ignoring the 'or later' issue, this license (SPDX: OPUBL-1.0) is > generally classified as "not allowed" with a usage note that says > it is allowed for documentation "if the copyright holder does not > exercise any of the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI". > https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/data/OPUBL-1.0.toml > (I think we did it this way because under our new system prohibiting > it by default while stating an exception was the most convenient way > to express the policy, which has been in place in Fedora for at least > ~15 years.) We stopped building documentation for the coq package because it is under this license. The LICENSE file says: "Options A and B are *not* elected." I only see options A and B in Section VI, so that would fall under this exception, right? When I visit https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ and search for OPUBL-1.0, the usage note you refer to does not appear, so I was unaware of it. Now that you mention it, I do see it in data/OPUBL-1.0.toml in the Fedora License Data repository. I just paged through every license on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ and no usage notes are displayed for any of them. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
