On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 4:03 AM Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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.) > > Ok, Vim has it for its documentation and 'grep' didn't see any sentences > which should be in the source if upstream exercises license options, so > IMO we're clear. > > So I will add the license to the license tag and add a comment that it > is for documentation and upstream does not use any license options. > Sounds ok? Sorry, I think I missed this part of your reply. Yes, that sounds OK! 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
