[jira] [Resolved] (LEGAL-617) Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as well?

["Henri Yandell (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Henri Yandell resolved LEGAL-617.
---------------------------------
    Resolution: Feedback Received

Resolving as no open conversation here.

> Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as well?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-617
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Vladimir Sitnikov
>            Priority: Major
>
> See https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RRYM3CLYJYW64VSQIXY6IF3TCDZGS6LM/
> {quote} CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code and content
> (corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system).
> We plan to classify CC0 as allowed-content only, so that CC0 would no
> longer be allowed for code. This is a fairly unusual change and may
> have an impact on a nontrivial number of Fedora packages (that is not
> clear to me right now), and we may grant a carveout for existing
> packages that include CC0-covered code. While we are moving towards a
> process in which license approvals are going to be done primarily
> through the Fedora license data repository on gitlab.com, I wanted to
> note this on the mailing list because of the significance of the
> change.
> The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has
> been building in FOSS that licenses that preclude any form of patent
> licensing or patent forbearance cannot be considered FOSS. CC0 has a
> clause that says: "No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are
> waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this
> document." (The trademark side of that clause is nonproblematic from a
> FOSS licensing norms standpoint.) The regular Creative Commons
> licenses have similar clauses.
> A few months ago we approved ODbL as a content license; this license
> contained its own "no patent license" clause. Up till this time, the
> official informal policy of Fedora has been that 'content' licenses
> must meet the standards for 'code' licenses except that they can
> prohibit modification. The new Fedora legal documentation on the
> license approval categories will note that allowed-content licenses
> can also have a no-patent-license clause. In a FOSS development and
> distribution context, the absence of patent licensing for non-software
> material is of significantly less concern than the software case.
> Feel free to ask any questions or make any comments about this!
> {quote}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org