On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 4:01 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com> 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