On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 4:01 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@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