> To give some historical context: There was and is still a lot of software > out there sloppily declaring itself as "public domain", which, in many > jurisdictions, is not even legally allowed. So Fedora has over the years > tried to approach those upstreams convincing them to adopt an all-permissive > license instead. And, there comes the point: Fedora has EXPLICITLY SUGGESTED > CC0 to those upstreams as a legally sound alternative to use!
This (last part) is correct. Fedora (and also I, personally) advocated for the adoption of CC0 in the past (for me, this was sometime prior to the past ten years I think). I think that ought to be borne in mind in considering how the change of policy is implemented. > So, e.g., CC-BY-SA is also not acceptable for software? That is currently the case: CC-BY-SA is classified as "allowed-documentation" and "allowed-content". I think in the past Fedora (like a number of other orgs in FOSS, I think) discouraged its use for software, but this was not really because of the "no patent licenses" clause, which has mostly been overlooked. Richard _______________________________________________ devel 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-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
