Re: Standardization documents in xsd and wsdl format
On 11 July 2014 16:20:45 CEST, Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se wrote: Standardization bodies tend to want to not have random people making random changes to their standardization documents that would create incompatible versions of the standards. The documentation licenses used by these organization therefore usually do not allow modification. The other answers seem correct to me. I just wish to note that standards organisations would be far better off providing public key signatures of the official standards documents to protactively demonstrate approval, instead of trying to use restrictive copyright licensing to reactively prosecute innovators who confuse, often in error. After all, the copyright licence doesn't prevent unauthorised modification or alert people to it. It just gives the licensor and others ways to punish people. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/29302c69-7d20-4c73-a734-e879444e7...@email.android.com
Re: Standardization documents in xsd and wsdl format
Mattias Ellert writes (Standardization documents in xsd and wsdl format): Various standardization bodies like e.g. W3C and OASIS that publish data communication standards, provide xsd and/or wsdl files describing these standards. These files, though machine readable and parsable by various interpreters, are often published with a documentation license rather than a software license since they are considered part of the standardization document rather than software that helps users implement the standard. Standardization bodies tend to want to not have random people making random changes to their standardization documents that would create incompatible versions of the standards. The documentation licenses used by these organization therefore usually do not allow modification. That would make these files non-free. Are such xsd and wsdl files allowed in Debian source packages, or do they have to be deleted from the source tarball? Are they allowed to be installed by Debian binary packages? (I guess the answer to both questions would be the same.) Current Debian practice is that all non-files, including these, must be removed. You must repack the source tarball. There are a variety of tools to help make this less tiresome. (I think this is pointless make-work but it appears that the project consensus, and the ftpmaster policy, is against me.) Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21446.36111.251951.58...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Standardization documents in xsd and wsdl format
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Mattias Ellert wrote: Are such xsd and wsdl files allowed in Debian source packages, or do they have to be deleted from the source tarball? Are they allowed to be installed by Debian binary packages? (I guess the answer to both questions would be the same.) Everything in every source and binary package in Debian main has to comply with the DFSG, xsd/wsdl files included. Debian BTS reference: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=728414 Looks non-free to me. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6Hb9xE7PcLMDC9qJFbhmpbBPLE+ORV5B8sK=zcszyu...@mail.gmail.com
