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. A few months ago we approved ODbL as a content license; this license contained its own "no patent license" clause. Richard _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-cond... 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. 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. (). Continue reading.
CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code and content (corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system).
Ask HN: What technologies have made your life worse?