Youtube TWIL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGJlQPUmVoo&list=PLbFVcOQ-YH_LRP687N0YeN78YZmBp5wq Brodie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYOl20SCdr8 On 8/6/22, Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > I posted the following recently to the Fedora legal list, but it was pointed > out by Fabio Valentini that the legal list is sort of obscure so I'm > reposting it here in the hope that it may reach more interested people: > > CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code and content > (corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system). > We plan to classify CC0 as allowed-content only, so that CC0 would no > longer be allowed for code. This is a fairly unusual change and may > have an impact on a nontrivial number of Fedora packages (that is not > clear to me right now), and we may grant a carveout for existing > packages that include CC0-covered code. While we are moving towards a > process in which license approvals are going to be done primarily > through the Fedora license data repository on gitlab.com, I wanted to > note this on the mailing list because of the significance of the > change. > > The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has > been building in FOSS that licenses that preclude any form of patent > licensing or patent forbearance cannot be considered FOSS. CC0 has a > clause that says: "No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are > waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this > document." (The trademark side of that clause is nonproblematic from a > FOSS licensing norms standpoint.) The regular Creative Commons > licenses have similar clauses. > > A few months ago we approved ODbL as a content license; this license > contained its own "no patent license" clause. Up till this time, the > official informal policy of Fedora has been that 'content' licenses > must meet the standards for 'code' licenses except that they can > prohibit modification. The new Fedora legal documentation on the > license approval categories will note that allowed-content licenses > can also have a no-patent-license clause. In a FOSS development and > distribution context, the absence of patent licensing for non-software > material is of significantly less concern than the software case. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
