On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 12:01 PM Chuck Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is a disjunctive license that includes CC0-1.0 as one of the options > acceptable for Fedora?
Yes, provided of course that the other disjunct is acceptable for Fedora. > I'm intending to submit perl-Crypt-Argon2 for > Fedora review and the C source code files [2] say: > > "You may use this work under the terms of a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 > License/Waiver or the Apache Public License 2.0, at your option." > > But some of the files only mention CC0-1.0. In the github [2] only > dist.ini mentions CC0-1.0 without Apache-2.0, but on CPAN [1] this is > expanded to README, LICENSE, lib/Crypt/Argon2.pm and > script/argon2-calibrate. > > I'd like to ask upstream to add a dual-license with Apache-2.0 > everywhere CC0-1.0 is mentioned, but only if that would be an > acceptable result. I will try to take a look at the github repo and the CPAN package when I get a moment, but yes, "Apache-2.0 OR CC0-1.0" is acceptable for Fedora (but would just be represented in the spec file as "Apache-2.0" as explained in our documentation). 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
