> 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?
That solution probably wouldn't make sense in typical cases involving CC0 covering code. However, I could imagine making package-specific determinations, possibly involving legal review in some cases, that particular uses of CC0 were tolerable, based on the nature of what is actually covered by CC0. To give you a concrete example which is pretty clear: If I understand correctly, the REUSE initiative currently recommends, questionably in my view, that files assumed to be obviously noncopyrightable should be given a CC0 designation. [1] Given the kinds of files they have in mind, I could imagine giving packages an exemption from the prohibition on CC0 to the extent that such projects were merely attempting to be REUSE-conformant -- somewhat similar to Fedora's continued blanket tolerance of CC0 for nonsoftware "content". An example of such a package, gi-docgen, was raised in the Fedora legal gitlab issue thread on CC0. [2] That doesn't seem ideal to me. Of course a better solution would be for REUSE to not insist on CC0 as the license to use in this situation (or, even better, to drop the insistence on having a license notice on trivial-content files at all) (see [3]). [1] https://reuse.software/faq/#uncopyrightable [2] https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/32#note_1045462752 [3 https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-docs/issues/62#issuecomment-1200305896 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
