yes, the wiki page is still the official list until we get the new docs
section up and running and the TOML database generating a human-readable
list there.
Richard and I have now updated the wiki page accordingly :)
Jilayne
On 2/28/22 4:04 PM, Justin Zobel wrote:
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 [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
