[odc-discuss] Fedora analysis

[Rufus Pollock]

To follow up Jordan's comments with some specific ones of my own:

2009/3/6 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan at gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
>     I'm a Fedora packager and I have submitted a post in the Fedora
> Legal mailing list asking if your new license is free enough for our
> distribution. The thread starts here:
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-March/msg00008.html
>
> As you will read, there are some concerns and they tend to say that
> the Factual Information License is not open source. I hope you can
> address these remarks before this license will be released.

I'm a little mystified by the comments relayed from the legal counsel
(perhaps there was more?)
<https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-March/msg00009.html>

a) Observe note at top of license: "NOTE: This licence is intended to
be applied only to factual information. It is in the same style as the
BSD or MIT licences." So this is really *not* suitable for 'open
source' (i.e. code) stuff. It should only be used for data.

b) The definition of "Use" is broad (and all encompassing) and you are
free to perform any 'use':

<quote>
“Use” – As a verb, means doing any act that is restricted by
copyright, whether in the original medium or any other; and includes
modifying the Work as may be technically necessary to use it in a
different mode or format. This includes the right to sublicense the
work.

....

The Licensor grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
licence to Use the Work for the duration of any applicable copyright.
</quote>

Thus I don't understand the concerns expressed in the quoted response
that 'Use' may somehow be limited (the fact that it says "and includes
modifying the work ..." does not limit in any way the previous
sentence). Any clarifications from your end would be useful.

> The analysis on the ODB is in progress.
>
> If you want, I can proxy your answers here to the other mailing list.
> Otherwise your are very welcome to join the Fedora Legal ML.

I think the proxy approach is best -- that way we centralize key material here.

Regards,

Rufus