On Sat, Aug 6, 2022, 10:35 AM Richard Fontana <[email protected]> wrote:
> [re FDK-AAC, which has a no-patent-licenses clause] > > > That is correct. The clause is considered a no-op and the license > > isn't approved for use outside of this case. > > I think it is correct to bring FDK-AAC up in this discussion. I would agree that has some use as an example. For consistency with treatment of CC0, I believe we have to move it to > 'not-allowed' formally, but we can devise some sort of exception that will > keep the specific current use case in place. > So, as I understand it, in the case of fdk-aac-free, the packager (with assistance of legal?) reviewed the code and stripped the patented codecs. Using that example, packagers wanting to continue to use CC0 would need to perform such a review, strip as needed, and need legal review? Is that what you are suggesting? >
_______________________________________________ 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
