On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 4:58 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 4:18 PM Fabio Valentini via legal > <legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > The upstream project of one of the packages I maintain has changed its > > license metadata from `(MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016` to > > `(MIT OR Apache-2.0` AND Unicode-3.0` in the last release: > > > > https://github.com/dtolnay/unicode-ident/pull/28 > > > > The Unicode-DFS-2016 license text is indeed no longer available from > > the unicode.org website, where it has been replaced with the > > Unicode-3.0 license text. > > > > As far as I know, the Unicode-DFS-2016 license was applicable to code > > derived from Unicode data - is this no longer the case? Has the > > Unicode-3.0 license replaced it for this purpose? > > > > If this is indeed the case, does this need to be reflected in other > > places (like the Rust standard library / compiler), which reference > > the old Unicode-DFS-2016 license text, too? > > Glancing at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2105 > that seems to say that Unicode-DFS-2016 and Unicode-3.0 are equivalent > licenses in the SPDX sense, so if that's true maybe it doesn't matter? Yeah - reading up on all the tickets that have been filed around this issue, that's the conclusion I came to as well. I'll make sure that this change from upstream is correctly reflected in affected Fedora packages. Thanks, Fabio -- _______________________________________________ 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
