Yaroslav Halchenko <[email protected]> writes: > Should I advise to blindly attach a copyright statement and > license, possibly copyrighting non-copyrightable, thus committing > "Copyfraud" in some jurisdictions?
Probably not, as this would be illegal in said jurisdictions. > What would be the take of Debian ftpmasters whenever they receive a > package shipping data without clean copyright/license statement and > something like this instead: > > This data has been collected 2010 by Author1, Author2. > Please recognise the substantial effort that went into the > collection of this data by attributing the authors. > Attribute by citing the original publication: > Author1, Author2, Title of the paper, where published, 2010, > URL: http://.... This is also problematic. First, it does not grant the necessary permissions for DSFG-freeness in jurisdictions where this would be needed (e.g., all EU member countries). Second, it imposes a citation requirement, which is generally regarded as discriminating against field of endeavor, thus failing DSFG ยง 3. It is much better to mention the relevant publication in a note outside the license text. And third, in jurisdictions where the database creator does not hold any rights to the database contents, trying to impose such a requirement might again be regarded as copyfraud. > Or should I advise to use the text of MIT license, verbally and > explicitly describing possible uses and disclaiming any warranty? > but once again without any copyright statement. I think the best thing would be to use the Open Data Commons PDDL [1], which was explicitly created for such situations. Hendrik [1] http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
