On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 4:14 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If it is MariaDB who are pushing this, then I'd note they could > take steps to make this into a total non-issue. Sure. I'm now here to understand what's the status on Fedora side. Once I get a clear understanding, I can start negotiations. I believe, however, we are about to hit this issue sooner or later again, with different similar licenses, and then with increasing frequency, as Neal suggested. So IMO it's worth debating now. -- Michal Schorm Software Engineer Core Services - Databases Team Red Hat -- On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 4:14 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 04:08:03PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:45 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The BUSL-derived Sentry licenses (currently the subject of an SPDX > > > issue) have AFAIK not been considered by Fedora, and I hope that these > > > licenses have no impact on any existing Fedora package. > > ... > > > I think we can cross the bridge when we come to it -- or have we come to it? > > ... > > > I think this is alluding to the "no effective license" principle. But > > > in lots of situations we have to make guesses and interpretations of > > > various sorts. I can maybe see adopting the position that these > > > licenses are so odious that we don't want to distribute anything that > > > was even formerly under them (until the theoretical trigger to free is > > > reached) but that seems a little extreme to me if it's just a kind of > > > political gesture. There's already a license allowed in Fedora -- it's > > > pretty obscure and I can't remember the name offhand -- where the > > > license basically says something like "proprietary until the year > > > 2000, then you have the following FOSS license" and this is allowed > > > because in that case the change date is clearly something that > > > occurred *long* ago. > > > > I was recently contacted by MariaDB upstream, saying they would like > > to see MaxScale (a DB proxy) [1], their product, to become adopted by > > distributions, since the oldest major version (21.06) just recently > > reached the license transformation date (2024-06-03) and should be > > under 'GPL-2.0-or-later' now. [2] > > > > So in this case - no, the package is not part of Fedora yet, we only > > just started talks about whether it could be. > > But yes, I believe we just came to that bridge. > > > > I also share the opinion that there's no need to be strict just for > > the reason for a political gesture. Likely the exact opposite - I > > believe we should be happy the upstreams are accepting the idea of > > FOSS and are making an effort to find some compromise with what they > > are used to - and try to be welcoming to this type of licenses. > > If it is MariaDB who are pushing this, then I'd note they could > take steps to make this into a total non-issue. > > ie they could update the git branch for the old version that is past > the "Change Date" cutoff, such that its LICENSE file & file headers > are updated to all refer to "GPL" instead of "BUSL", and then release > an updated bugfix tarball. With that the FOSS nature would be fully > unambiguous and thus trivally accepted by any distro maintainers. > > 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
