On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 2:47 PM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Dne 17. 07. 24 v 15:45 Richard Fontana napsal(a): > > I think it's "fine" in theory, but somewhat risky. I imagine that in > > some cases it won't be clear whether a particular version mixes BUSL > > (at various stages of the process towards the "change date") and > > post-BUSL licenses. And if we concluded that the change date had > > occurred for everything, we might want to require some further action, > > at a minimum documenting the conclusion (not just in the license tag) > > and probably also at least including a copy of the post-BUSL allowed > > license. > > > Chm, I wonder how to for example apply security fix? Imagine there is > some security issue fixed in the most recent version, will we > reimplement such patch? Good example. We generally won't be able to backport a BUSL-licensed security fix to a now-free old version. Maybe reimplementing a patch will be a solution. 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
