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/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27fa...
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?
Thanks,
Hey all,
Since Creative Commons licenses are already coming up, how is the Creative Commons IGO license family classified in Fedora?
I didn't notice these licenses in the Licenses wiki page. They are distinctly different from other Creative Commons licenses and to the best of my knowledge, they are not superseded by the 4.0 family of Creative Commons licenses. I mention it here because if we are looking at other Creative Commons license families, it would be good to clarify how Fedora views the IGO family too. For context, some UN agencies are considering the IGO family of licenses as a default open source license for work created by public servants, so it isn't impossible to see CC IGO content working its way into Fedora at some point.
The key distinction made in the IGO licenses from other CC licenses is around mediation and arbitration for resolving legal disputes.
* https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ * https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/ * https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/igo/ * https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/
-- Cheers, Justin W. Flory (he/him) || 🔗 jwf.io TZ=America/New_York 🕖
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, June 28th, 2022 at 15:49, Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name 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/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27fa...
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?
Thanks,
-- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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
Hi Justin,
Are you asking for the review of these b/c there is a package to be included in Fedora that uses these licenses?
Thanks, Jilayne
On 6/28/22 3:57 PM, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote:
Hey all,
Since Creative Commons licenses are already coming up, how is the Creative Commons IGO license family classified in Fedora?
I didn't notice these licenses in the Licenses wiki page. They are distinctly different from other Creative Commons licenses and to the best of my knowledge, they are not superseded by the 4.0 family of Creative Commons licenses. I mention it here because if we are looking at other Creative Commons license families, it would be good to clarify how Fedora views the IGO family too. For context, some UN agencies are considering the IGO family of licenses as a default open source license for work created by public servants, so it isn't impossible to see CC IGO content working its way into Fedora at some point.
The key distinction made in the IGO licenses from other CC licenses is around mediation and arbitration for resolving legal disputes.
*https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ *https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/ *https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/igo/ *https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/
-- Cheers, Justin W. Flory (he/him) || 🔗 jwf.io TZ=America/New_York 🕖
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, June 28th, 2022 at 15:49, Michel Alexandre Salimmichel@michel-slm.name 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/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27fa...
Two questions here:
- can we treat CC-PDDC as basically Public Domain, which is approved by
Fedora perhttps://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?
Thanks,
-- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list --legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-leave@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
My view - Fedora shouldn't at this point make classifications on licenses in advance of their foreseeable inclusion in an actual proposed or existing package in Fedora. (Historically, Fedora did this, possibly even with respect to some of the Creative Commons licenses.)
Richard
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:30 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Justin,
Are you asking for the review of these b/c there is a package to be included in Fedora that uses these licenses?
Thanks, Jilayne
On 6/28/22 3:57 PM, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote:
Hey all,
Since Creative Commons licenses are already coming up, how is the Creative Commons IGO license family classified in Fedora?
I didn't notice these licenses in the Licenses wiki page. They are distinctly different from other Creative Commons licenses and to the best of my knowledge, they are not superseded by the 4.0 family of Creative Commons licenses. I mention it here because if we are looking at other Creative Commons license families, it would be good to clarify how Fedora views the IGO family too. For context, some UN agencies are considering the IGO family of licenses as a default open source license for work created by public servants, so it isn't impossible to see CC IGO content working its way into Fedora at some point.
The key distinction made in the IGO licenses from other CC licenses is around mediation and arbitration for resolving legal disputes.
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/igo/
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/
-- Cheers, Justin W. Flory (he/him) || 🔗 jwf.io TZ=America/New_York 🕖
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, June 28th, 2022 at 15:49, Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name 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/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27fa...
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?
Thanks,
-- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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
--
Hi Richard, Jilayne,
Any opinion on the original question about CC-PDDC? It affects a new package review (rust-pwd).
Thanks,
Michel
On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 01:29 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
My view - Fedora shouldn't at this point make classifications on licenses in advance of their foreseeable inclusion in an actual proposed or existing package in Fedora. (Historically, Fedora did this, possibly even with respect to some of the Creative Commons licenses.)
Richard
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:30 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Justin,
Are you asking for the review of these b/c there is a package to be included in Fedora that uses these licenses?
Thanks, Jilayne
On 6/28/22 3:57 PM, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote:
Hey all,
Since Creative Commons licenses are already coming up, how is the Creative Commons IGO license family classified in Fedora?
I didn't notice these licenses in the Licenses wiki page. They are distinctly different from other Creative Commons licenses and to the best of my knowledge, they are not superseded by the 4.0 family of Creative Commons licenses. I mention it here because if we are looking at other Creative Commons license families, it would be good to clarify how Fedora views the IGO family too. For context, some UN agencies are considering the IGO family of licenses as a default open source license for work created by public servants, so it isn't impossible to see CC IGO content working its way into Fedora at some point.
The key distinction made in the IGO licenses from other CC licenses is around mediation and arbitration for resolving legal disputes.
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/igo/
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/
-- Cheers, Justin W. Flory (he/him) || 🔗 jwf.io TZ=America/New_York 🕖
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, June 28th, 2022 at 15:49, Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name 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/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27fa...
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?
Thanks,
-- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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
I would suggest:
* Fedora should recognize CC-PDDC as a "good" license under the current system * The license tag for CC-PDDC would be CC-PDDC (not "Public Domain") * 1 and 2 would persist under the switch to SPDX identifiers * For this specific package, the license tag should be CC-PDDC (not "Public Domain"), but it is not clear that this is really what the upstream author(s) intended * Consider getting the upstream author to put the text of CC-PDDC in the LICENSE file
- Richard
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:15 AM Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name wrote:
Hi Richard, Jilayne,
Any opinion on the original question about CC-PDDC? It affects a new package review (rust-pwd).
Thanks,
Michel
On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 01:29 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
My view - Fedora shouldn't at this point make classifications on licenses in advance of their foreseeable inclusion in an actual proposed or existing package in Fedora. (Historically, Fedora did this, possibly even with respect to some of the Creative Commons licenses.)
Richard
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:30 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Justin,
Are you asking for the review of these b/c there is a package to be included in Fedora that uses these licenses?
Thanks, Jilayne
On 6/28/22 3:57 PM, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote:
Hey all,
Since Creative Commons licenses are already coming up, how is the Creative Commons IGO license family classified in Fedora?
I didn't notice these licenses in the Licenses wiki page. They are distinctly different from other Creative Commons licenses and to the best of my knowledge, they are not superseded by the 4.0 family of Creative Commons licenses. I mention it here because if we are looking at other Creative Commons license families, it would be good to clarify how Fedora views the IGO family too. For context, some UN agencies are considering the IGO family of licenses as a default open source license for work created by public servants, so it isn't impossible to see CC IGO content working its way into Fedora at some point.
The key distinction made in the IGO licenses from other CC licenses is around mediation and arbitration for resolving legal disputes.
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/igo/
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/
-- Cheers, Justin W. Flory (he/him) || 🔗 jwf.io TZ=America/New_York 🕖
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, June 28th, 2022 at 15:49, Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name 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/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27fa...
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?
Thanks,
-- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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
-- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2
On 6/29/22 8:32 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
I would suggest:
- Fedora should recognize CC-PDDC as a "good" license under the current system
MR done here https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/merge_requests/17
- The license tag for CC-PDDC would be CC-PDDC (not "Public Domain")
- 1 and 2 would persist under the switch to SPDX identifiers
- For this specific package, the license tag should be CC-PDDC (not
"Public Domain"), but it is not clear that this is really what the upstream author(s) intended
- Consider getting the upstream author to put the text of CC-PDDC in
the LICENSE file
a couple people have already raised this here https://gitlab.com/pwoolcoc/pwd/-/issues/1 (which I just added to)
Jilayne
- Richard
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:15 AM Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name wrote:
Hi Richard, Jilayne,
Any opinion on the original question about CC-PDDC? It affects a new package review (rust-pwd).
Thanks,
Michel
On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 01:29 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
My view - Fedora shouldn't at this point make classifications on licenses in advance of their foreseeable inclusion in an actual proposed or existing package in Fedora. (Historically, Fedora did this, possibly even with respect to some of the Creative Commons licenses.)
Richard
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:30 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Justin,
Are you asking for the review of these b/c there is a package to be included in Fedora that uses these licenses?
Thanks, Jilayne
On 6/28/22 3:57 PM, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote:
Hey all,
Since Creative Commons licenses are already coming up, how is the Creative Commons IGO license family classified in Fedora?
I didn't notice these licenses in the Licenses wiki page. They are distinctly different from other Creative Commons licenses and to the best of my knowledge, they are not superseded by the 4.0 family of Creative Commons licenses. I mention it here because if we are looking at other Creative Commons license families, it would be good to clarify how Fedora views the IGO family too. For context, some UN agencies are considering the IGO family of licenses as a default open source license for work created by public servants, so it isn't impossible to see CC IGO content working its way into Fedora at some point.
The key distinction made in the IGO licenses from other CC licenses is around mediation and arbitration for resolving legal disputes.
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/igo/
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/
-- Cheers, Justin W. Flory (he/him) || 🔗 jwf.io TZ=America/New_York 🕖
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, June 28th, 2022 at 15:49, Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name 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/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27fa...
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?
Thanks,
-- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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
-- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2
Hi Jilayne,
On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 15:21 -0600, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
On 6/29/22 8:32 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
I would suggest:
- Fedora should recognize CC-PDDC as a "good" license under the
current system
MR done here https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/merge_requests/17
- The license tag for CC-PDDC would be CC-PDDC (not "Public
Domain")
- 1 and 2 would persist under the switch to SPDX identifiers
- For this specific package, the license tag should be CC-PDDC (not
"Public Domain"), but it is not clear that this is really what the upstream author(s) intended
- Consider getting the upstream author to put the text of CC-PDDC
in the LICENSE file
a couple people have already raised this here https://gitlab.com/pwoolcoc/pwd/-/issues/1 (which I just added to)
Jilayne
Thanks! Should we update the Fedora wiki as well then? It's still not showing CC-PDDC.
Best regards,
re: CC IGO.
That's fair to wait for it to appear in a real case scenario. I don't have an immediate example although I often lift CC BY/BY-SA licensed content from and into Fedora, for use cases like documentation where Content licenses show up more often. I was recently in a conversation elsewhere about this license family, so I thought I'd ask a naïve question here. :-)
-- Cheers, Justin W. Flory (he/him) || 🔗 jwf.io TZ=America/New_York 🕖
------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, June 29th, 2022 at 01:29, Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
My view - Fedora shouldn't at this point make classifications on licenses in advance of their foreseeable inclusion in an actual proposed or existing package in Fedora. (Historically, Fedora did this, possibly even with respect to some of the Creative Commons licenses.)
Richard
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:30 PM Jilayne Lovejoy jlovejoy@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Justin,
Are you asking for the review of these b/c there is a package to be included in Fedora that uses these licenses?
Thanks, Jilayne
On 6/28/22 3:57 PM, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote:
Hey all,
Since Creative Commons licenses are already coming up, how is the Creative Commons IGO license family classified in Fedora?
I didn't notice these licenses in the Licenses wiki page. They are distinctly different from other Creative Commons licenses and to the best of my knowledge, they are not superseded by the 4.0 family of Creative Commons licenses. I mention it here because if we are looking at other Creative Commons license families, it would be good to clarify how Fedora views the IGO family too. For context, some UN agencies are considering the IGO family of licenses as a default open source license for work created by public servants, so it isn't impossible to see CC IGO content working its way into Fedora at some point.
The key distinction made in the IGO licenses from other CC licenses is around mediation and arbitration for resolving legal disputes.
-- Cheers, Justin W. Flory (he/him) || 🔗 jwf.io TZ=America/New_York 🕖
------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, June 28th, 2022 at 15:49, Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name 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/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27fa...
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?
Thanks,
-- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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
--
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/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27fa...
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 perhttps://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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-leave@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
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@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/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27fa...
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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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
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@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@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/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27fa...
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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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
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@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@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/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27fa...
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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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