I'm not sure who is authorized to be the "someone on the Fedora side" to
give the OK, but I had a (re)read of the license and here are a few
thoughts:
I think it meets the concept of free/open for Fedora as I understand it.
The fact that it's been okay'd for inclusion in RHEL supports this, as I
think the criteria for Fedora and RHEL (and any Red Hat open source
project or product, perhaps?) is or should be aligned.
The only things that caught my attention in the license (other than
length and thoroughness) are:
- as per section 2.3(b) the license does not cover any patents over the
Content or the Database
I think this is ok, as it's similar to the CC licenses (which are
approved) and I don't really see how patents would apply here anyway
- it's interesting that the license makes clear it's for the database,
but does not cover the copyright in the Contents independent of this
Database.
I don't think this is a factor in terms of the free/open for Fedora
determination, but just an interesting drafting clarification, which I
suppose makes sense when one thinks about it, but leaves open the
question as to how the Contents are licensed? I'm guessing that may not
be specifically addressed for many databases.
Jilayne
(also a member of Red Hat legal, in case that was not obvious/known)
On 2/15/22 3:34 PM, Justin Zobel wrote:
Ahh OK. Well, it would make sense to have a combined list. Hopefully,
someone on the Fedora side can give me the all OK to include the
package based on RHEL's inclusion policy.
And I just realised I hit reply instead of reply-all on the email again.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:55 AM Richard Fontana <[email protected]>
wrote:
In theory, the Fedora list is the RHEL list, but some time ago Red Hat
started supplementing it internally with another "list" (or compiled
information) resulting from review of results of certain scanning
tools on RHEL package source code. That "list" is not currently public
information. Our current plan is to essentially merge the two license
approval efforts so that there is one single public list of approved
and unapproved licenses. But it will take some time to undertake the
various steps for getting there.
Richard
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 5:14 PM Justin Zobel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thank you Richard. Is there an "Accepted Licenses" page for RHEL?
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:40 AM Richard Fontana
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 9:52 PM Justin Zobel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thank you for these insights. Are you able to provide a link
to the RHEL review of ODbL for the Fedora license team to refer to
in their review process?
>>
>> Unfortunately in this case there really isn't anything to link to
>> apart from a snarky comment by me about how lengthy the license
is :-)
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 11:52 AM Richard Fontana
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 6:49 PM Justin Zobel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi Team,
>> >> >
>> >> > I've just begun packaging for Fedora and of course, I
happen to choose one with a license that needs querying.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) is for
database usage in the kpublictransport KDE library. It is used for
access to OpenStreetMap via the KTrip application designed to aid
users in navigating via public transport.
>> >> >
>> >> > From the OpenStreetMap Copyright page on their website:
>> >> > OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under the Open Data
Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by the OpenStreetMap
Foundation (OSMF).
>> >> >
>> >> > Open Database License:
https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
>> >> > Open Street Map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
>> >> > KDE Source Repository:
https://invent.kde.org/libraries/kpublictransport/
>> >> > Fedora Source Repository:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kpublictransport/
>> >> >
>> >> > I would like to know if this license is acceptable to Fedora.
>> >>
>> >> This is somewhat interesting as it is the first case I can
think of
>> >> where a license that Red Hat has specifically reviewed
internally for
>> >> inclusion in Red Hat Enterprise Linux has at a later time
come up for
>> >> a decision in Fedora.
>> >>
>> >> We actually approved ODBL for RHEL last year, and I think if
we had
>> >> our contemplated merging of RHEL license review and Fedora
license
>> >> review in place, it would just end up on the "good" list,
but given
>> >> that the new process is not yet established it would
probably be a
>> >> good idea to do another review now that it has come up for
Fedora.
>> >>
>> >> Richard
>> >>
>>
--
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam on the list, report
it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
