Am 08.10.2012 20:14:09 schrieb(en) Thomas Gazagnaire:
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).
Actually, I don't know what you mean. If you find this bit of
"legalese" aggressive... Sorry, I really tried to describe the issue in
an appropriate way.
Regarding being commercial: activities of a company are by definition
commercial, no matter whether they sell the product or give it away for
free. If there was not some connection with the business goals, the
company would not do it. Everything else is a fairy tale. This mostly
means that there are business interests of the company the outsiders do
not know, i.e. we are invited for a game, but we don't know some parts
of the rules.
> 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.
Well, actually it was not my intention that you do this. I am more
interested in a clarification (i.e. add licensing, and agree on
standards).
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.
See my comments in the response to Anil.
Gerd
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerd Stolpmann, Darmstadt, Germany g...@gerd-stolpmann.de
Creator of GODI and camlcity.org.
Contact details: http://www.camlcity.org/contact.html
Company homepage: http://www.gerd-stolpmann.de
------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Godi-list mailing list
Godi-list@ocaml-programming.de
https://godirepo.camlcity.org/mailman/listinfo/godi-list
