Hi all,
The upstream project of one of the packages I maintain has changed its license metadata from `(MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016` to `(MIT OR Apache-2.0` AND Unicode-3.0` in the last release:
https://github.com/dtolnay/unicode-ident/pull/28
The Unicode-DFS-2016 license text is indeed no longer available from the unicode.org website, where it has been replaced with the Unicode-3.0 license text.
As far as I know, the Unicode-DFS-2016 license was applicable to code derived from Unicode data - is this no longer the case? Has the Unicode-3.0 license replaced it for this purpose?
If this is indeed the case, does this need to be reflected in other places (like the Rust standard library / compiler), which reference the old Unicode-DFS-2016 license text, too?
Fabio
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 4:18 PM Fabio Valentini via legal legal@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi all,
The upstream project of one of the packages I maintain has changed its license metadata from `(MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016` to `(MIT OR Apache-2.0` AND Unicode-3.0` in the last release:
https://github.com/dtolnay/unicode-ident/pull/28
The Unicode-DFS-2016 license text is indeed no longer available from the unicode.org website, where it has been replaced with the Unicode-3.0 license text.
As far as I know, the Unicode-DFS-2016 license was applicable to code derived from Unicode data - is this no longer the case? Has the Unicode-3.0 license replaced it for this purpose?
If this is indeed the case, does this need to be reflected in other places (like the Rust standard library / compiler), which reference the old Unicode-DFS-2016 license text, too?
Glancing at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2105 that seems to say that Unicode-DFS-2016 and Unicode-3.0 are equivalent licenses in the SPDX sense, so if that's true maybe it doesn't matter?
Richard
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 4:58 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 4:18 PM Fabio Valentini via legal legal@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi all,
The upstream project of one of the packages I maintain has changed its license metadata from `(MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016` to `(MIT OR Apache-2.0` AND Unicode-3.0` in the last release:
https://github.com/dtolnay/unicode-ident/pull/28
The Unicode-DFS-2016 license text is indeed no longer available from the unicode.org website, where it has been replaced with the Unicode-3.0 license text.
As far as I know, the Unicode-DFS-2016 license was applicable to code derived from Unicode data - is this no longer the case? Has the Unicode-3.0 license replaced it for this purpose?
If this is indeed the case, does this need to be reflected in other places (like the Rust standard library / compiler), which reference the old Unicode-DFS-2016 license text, too?
Glancing at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2105 that seems to say that Unicode-DFS-2016 and Unicode-3.0 are equivalent licenses in the SPDX sense, so if that's true maybe it doesn't matter?
Yeah - reading up on all the tickets that have been filed around this issue, that's the conclusion I came to as well. I'll make sure that this change from upstream is correctly reflected in affected Fedora packages.
Thanks, Fabio