I guess as far as I understand, the Wiki page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing would be considered the "official" list. So if it's added to that, I'm free to use it :)
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:21 AM Richard Fontana <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:08 PM Justin Zobel <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > Hope you all had a great weekend. > > > > Just following up to see if there has been an official determination on > the inclusion of this license in Fedora's accepted license list? > > I am not sure if Fedora has a clear "official" process at the moment > (though that is being worked on). I would say though: ODbL should be > added as an approved license specifically for content, but given the > nature of this license, it should be noted that the elements of the > covered dataset also must be under terms acceptable to Fedora. In this > case, the OpenStreetMap data meets that standard. > > Richard > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Justin > > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 2:20 PM Richard Fontana <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 4:01 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> [JL wrote:] > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> [RF wrote:] > >> > > 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. > >> > >> [JL wrote:] > >> > so to quote your recent re-draft, it would go in the bucket of: > >> > > >> > 3. Licenses for Content > >> > > >> > “Content” means any material that is not code, documentation, fonts or > >> > binary firmware. > >> > > >> > In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for content if it > >> > restricts or prohibits modification but otherwise meets the standards > >> > for good licenses for code. > >> > >> Yes, but prompted by this license (and your comment on the patent > >> issue) I'm thinking we should revise that description -- I will reply > >> to the thread where I posted the draft category descriptions. > >> > >> 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
