On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 4:18 PM Fabio Valentini via legal
<legal@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The upstream project of one of the packages I maintain has changed its
> license metadata from `(MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016` to
> `(MIT OR Apache-2.0` AND Unicode-3.0` in the last release:
>
> https://github.com/dtolnay/unicode-ident/pull/28
>
> The Unicode-DFS-2016 license text is indeed no longer available from
> the unicode.org website, where it has been replaced with the
> Unicode-3.0 license text.
>
> As far as I know, the Unicode-DFS-2016 license was applicable to code
> derived from Unicode data - is this no longer the case? Has the
> Unicode-3.0 license replaced it for this purpose?
>
> If this is indeed the case, does this need to be reflected in other
> places (like the Rust standard library / compiler), which reference
> the old Unicode-DFS-2016 license text, too?

Glancing at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2105
that seems to say that Unicode-DFS-2016 and Unicode-3.0 are equivalent
licenses in the SPDX sense, so if that's true maybe it doesn't matter?

Richard

-- 
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to