Hi, > I've just found out that there is a commercial derived work of GODI's package > metadata (e.g. the DESCR texts)
First of all, OPAM is actually distributed under GPLv3, so it is not a commercial derived work. But yes, OPAM's repository is in the same state as the one of GODi, ie. they don't have a license yet. So you are absolutely right to raise this issue (either if a less aggressive email would also have worked). > I just want to point out that even such short texts are subject to copyright > laws, and we haven't defined any licensing condition yet. This probably means > that the individual authors (packagers) did not give the permission to use > these texts other than those purposes implicitly possible within GODI (as you > might know, the "defaults" in copyright law are conservative). Yes, most of the OPAM package descriptions come indeed from the META files, but we've also integrated descriptions from upstream websites, from the OCaml hump and we've accepted contributions from external authors. So yes, I am now aware that this was a mistake, as these descriptions do not have a copyright, and thus we are legally not allowed to do this. I just wanted people to be able to search for packages easily, so I'm confess that I've overlooked that aspect. In order to fix this, I've mostly reverted the description files here: https://github.com/OCamlPro/opam-repository/commit/a88bafdb8519b2ff83b6b2178002f083ef3e0d65 If this is still an issue, I can remove the remaining description files. Regarding the license for GODI description files: most of the description files that packagers create in GODI are actually copied/pasted from author's website, so I'm not sure how you'll be able to track this if you don't have a *very* permissive licensing scheme. Regards, Thomas _______________________________________________ Godi-list mailing list Godi-list@ocaml-programming.de https://godirepo.camlcity.org/mailman/listinfo/godi-list
