On Sat, Aug 6, 2022, 10:35 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[re FDK-AAC, which has a no-patent-licenses clause]
> That is correct. The clause is considered a no-op and the license
> isn't approved for use outside of this case.
I think it is correct to bring FDK-AAC up in this discussion.
I would agree that has some use as an example.
For consistency with treatment of CC0, I believe we have to move it to 'not-allowed' formally, but we can devise some sort of exception that will keep the specific current use case in place.
So, as I understand it, in the case of
fdk-aac-free, the packager
(with assistance of legal?) reviewed
the code and stripped the patented codecs.
Using that example, packagers wanting to
continue to use CC0 would need to perform
such a review, strip as needed, and need
legal review?
Is that what you are suggesting?
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
