[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Request for adding licenses from Vim into allowed licenses
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:42 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Open Publication License, v1.0 or later - see
> http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
Ignoring the 'or later' issue, this license (SPDX: OPUBL-1.0) is
generally classified as "not allowed" with a usage note that says
it is allowed for documentation "if the copyright holder does not
exercise any of the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI".
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/data/OPUB...
(I think we did it this way because under our new system prohibiting
it by default while stating an exception was the most convenient way
to express the policy, which has been in place in Fedora for at least
~15 years.)
We stopped building documentation for the coq package because it is
under this license. The LICENSE file says: "Options A and B are *not*
elected." I only see options A and B in Section VI, so that would
fall under this exception, right?
When I visit https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/
and search for OPUBL-1.0, the usage note you refer to does not appear,
so I was unaware of it. Now that you mention it, I do see it in
data/OPUBL-1.0.toml in the Fedora License Data repository. I just
paged through every license on
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ and
no usage notes are displayed for any of them.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/