On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 12:11 PM Iñaki Ucar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Any ETA on the assessment of this license? Thanks in advance.
No, we're still thinking about it. It's a difficult problem. "But, again the last clause in the OpenFlow license is exactly the same as in the W3C license, which is OSI-approved. So my understanding is that the fundamental part to assess here is the "under the copyrights" addendum compared to a standard MIT license." The fact that the W3C license has been Fedora-approved is more relevant (Fedora does not always agree with OSI determinations). But standards for license approval are always evolving (slowly). It's not clear that just because some language was considered okay in W3C a long time ago we should continue to tolerate it in licenses published or considered more recently. Richard > On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 15:47, Iñaki Ucar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 20:52, Matthew Miller <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 02:50:28PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > > > > "The name and trademarks of copyright holder(s) may NOT be used in > > > > advertising or publicity pertaining to the Software or any derivatives > > > > without specific, written prior permission." > > > > > > > > while the NTP counterpart says: > > > > > > > > "and that the name (TrademarkedName) not be used in advertising or > > > > publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, > > > > written prior permission." > > > > > > I can definitely see a practical concern here. In the second case, > > > (TrademarkedName) is usually the organization — for example, the WordNet > > > variant says > > > > > > "The name of Princeton University or Princeton may not be used in > > > advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software > > > and/or database." > > > > > > That's easy to follow. On the other hand, it's very common for us to use > > > the > > > name of a piece of software in Fedora Linux release announcements. Like, > > > "This release now includes WordNet 3.0", or whatever. > > > > But, again the last clause in the OpenFlow license is exactly the same > > as in the W3C license, which is OSI-approved. So my understanding is > > that the fundamental part to assess here is the "under the copyrights" > > addendum compared to a standard MIT license. > > > > -- > > Iñaki Úcar > > > > -- > Iñaki Úcar > _______________________________________________ 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
