Hi Richard, Jilayne,
Agreed on both (and uh, turns out the reply got straight to my inbox
and I didn't get a duplicate copy via the list, which is why I didn't
initially see this).
We can do a merge request to add the proper CC-PDDC license and see
what upstream says.
For adding CC-PDDC to the good license list - how long would it take?
Thanks,
Michel
On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 01:51 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
Also: someone sufficiently motivated could try to get the upstream
maintainer to replace the "No known copyright" statement with the
actual text of CC-PDDC in the interest of improving license
information upstream. :-)
- Richard
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 1:47 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> This is actually slightly unclear because what the maintainer seems
> to
> have been done (at quick glance) is (1) replace the Apache License
> 2.0
> with a "No known copyright" statement in a LICENSE file (containing
> no
> other text) and (2) simultaneously replace "MIT/Apache-2.0" with
> "CC-PDDC" in the Cargo.toml file.
>
> CC-PDDC actually contemplates being used by either a 'Dedicator' or
> a
> 'Certifier' and you could sort of see the "No known copyright"
> statement as being in line with being a "Certifier", but I assume
> the
> maintainer is the author and saw themselves as a 'Dedicator'. I
> assume
> that there are no other authors or all authors have agreed to this
> change. (Ideally, someone would look into that, but it's generally
> impractical to do so.)
>
> Anyway, it's clear that this is okay for Fedora despite the
> ambiguity
> and under the Callaway notation system would presumably be
> designated
> as "Public Domain" in the license tag. With the future switch to
> SPDX
> identifiers, I'm not sure how we'd want to deal with this in the
> license tag. I'd probably say it's reasonable to have the license
> tag
> say CC-PDDC (assuming that gets added to the Fedora allowed license
> list).
>
> One side comment on CC0: We probably want to reclassify CC0 as not
> allowed for code by default because of the "no patent rights are
> granted" clause, an issue not present in CC-PDDC. This may require
> granting exceptions to existing packages that are using CC0 for
> code.
> Jilayne and I were recently discussing the possible need for either
> an
> "allowed-conditional" status or a process for giving specific
> packages
> exceptions that allow them to include code/content under non-
> allowed
> licenses. I may raise that topic in a separate thread.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:24 PM Jilayne Lovejoy
> <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Michel,
> >
> >
> > On 6/28/22 1:49 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > During the review of rust-pwd (needed as a new dependency for
> > rust-nu-
> > path):
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2101580
> >
> > it came to light that the upstream Rust crate declares the
> > license to
> > be CC-PDDC:
https://spdx.org/licenses/preview/CC-PDDC.html
> >
> > The change itself happened after the previous patch release
> > (1.3.0) and
> > is released in the latest 1.3.1:
> >
> >
https://gitlab.com/pwoolcoc/pwd/-/commit/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b2...
> >
> > side note, but I must say that the change seems to come out of no
> > where and they did not include a copy of the CC-PDDC in the repo,
> > which is also odd. I hope there is only the one author of this
> > code!
> >
> > Two questions here:
> > - can we treat CC-PDDC as basically Public Domain, which is
> > approved by
> > Fedora per
> >
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
> > - if not, can we use the Git commit history to assume that the
> > intent
> > is to make this public domain?
> >
> > Given we are on the eave (ish) of adopting SPDX identifiers and
> > "Public Domain" represents a Fedora category which will later
> > need to be manually reviewed to be updated to an SPDX id... I'd
> > say it'd be preferable to review the CC-PDDC as to whether it
> > should be allowed for Fedora based and then, if so, then add it
> > to the Fedora allowed list and use the SPDX id :)
> >
> > I'll give my two cents on that: given that it's a public domain
> > dedication and also that CC0-1.0 is already allowed (which this
> > pre-dated), I would say it meets the free/open criteria for
> > Fedora and should be allowed for use in Fedora.
> >
> > Richard - you wanna chime in?
> >
> > Jilayne
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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