I forgot to mention that the center of my question was about the second stage of the license - once it reaches the condition to transform to a free license, whether it is absolutely fine to add the software to Fedora under that specific free license, or whether there is any specific point of view the Fedora Legal team holds, or other specific requirements how to list the license correctly. On the other hand, Fedora package maintainers shouldn't try to guess the resulting license(s) that applies to the user, they should only list the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm. In this case, assuming that the license already transformed to the free one might be the guessing package maintainer shouldn't do. And as Daniel showed, On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 1:45 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > BUSL-1.1 is already listed as 'not-allowed' in Fedora: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ > https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/data/BUSL-1.1.toml > > For the time window that the code is under BUSL-1.1, it is non-free. > > When the timeout in BUSL-1.1 triggers, the BUSL-1.1 ceases to apply > to the code. The code becomes covered by GPL-2.0. IIUC, after that > point in time, it would be allowed in Fedora but being listed as > GPL-2.0-or-later in the spec, rather than BUSL-1.1. the software clearly can't be added to Fedora before the transformation, yet it's still unclear to me if, and how, it would be possible after the transformation. Michal -- Michal Schorm Software Engineer Core Services - Databases Team Red Hat -- On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 1:45 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 01:33:01PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'd like a review of 'MariaDB Business Source License (BSL)'. > > Here is a specific instance of the license: > > https://github.com/mariadb-corporation/MaxScale/blob/24.02/licenses/LICENSE2106.TXT > > Here is FAQ about it: > > https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/ > > > > TL;DR: > > the license says it's non-free, but it becomes free (GPL in this case) > > after a specific time. > > > > -- > > BUSL-1.1 is already listed as 'not-allowed' in Fedora: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ > https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/data/BUSL-1.1.toml > > For the time window that the code is under BUSL-1.1, it is non-free. > > When the timeout in BUSL-1.1 triggers, the BUSL-1.1 ceases to apply > to the code. The code becomes covered by GPL-2.0. IIUC, after that > point in time, it would be allowed in Fedora but being listed as > GPL-2.0-or-later in the spec, rather than BUSL-1.1. > > IOW, it would all depend on the date listed in the license for the > specific version you want to add to Fedora. > > > Apart from this specific case, I'd like to hear your guidance in > > similar cases in general - whether they are mostly accepted or rather > > avoided (by Fedora), as more licenses with this idea exists, e.g.: > > https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/master/LICENSE.md > > I'd assume the precedent set by denying BUSL is followed for > licenses with similar conceptual rules. > > With regards, > Daniel > -- > |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| > -- _______________________________________________ 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
