On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:29 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. Hmm, yes it does. I guess the assumption is that in many cases the "Contents" won't be individually copyrightable. To be clear on something I think is rather important since I was the one who brought up RHEL: the fact that it has been okay'd for inclusion in RHEL should not influence the decision here. Fedora has, I think, never had a "defer to RHEL" policy on licenses. It's really the other way around. But I guess this can be approved specifically as a content license. It's certainly a flawed license and I don't think it meets Fedora's free/open criteria in a more general sense. Richard > > 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 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 > > -- _______________________________________________ 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
