On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 10:37 AM Michal Schorm <mschorm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. OK, well I think it's reasonably clear. If, on a careful review, it is clear that some BUSL (or similar) stuff has passed its "change date", and the "change license" is a Fedora allowed license, then the fact that BUSL is the nominally applicable license should not be a categorical obstacle to packaging in Fedora. In such a case, Fedora should take some extra steps to make clear that the operative license is the Fedora allowed license, which at a minimum would be including a copy of the allowed license. Ex-BUSL stuff would be associated with the Fedora allowed license in the spec file license tag. Situations where still-BUSL and ex-BUSL code are mixed together should be particularly guarded against. It might be desirable to do more than this, such as trying to excise all indications of the previous applicability of the BUSL, but that seems like something Fedora packagers won't want to do. 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
