12:32 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:29 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com> 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 <rfontana(a)redhat.com> 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 <justin.zobel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Richard. Is there an "Accepted Licenses" page for RHEL?
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:40 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 9:52 PM Justin Zobel <justin.zobel(a)gmail.com>
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
<rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 6:49 PM Justin Zobel
<justin.zobel(a)gmail.com> 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 -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
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/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
--