Licensing of iso-codes
Hi, we, the maintainers of iso-codes[1], are currently discussing a licensing issue and are seeking some opinions from -legal subscribers. The problem is as follows: The package iso-codes provides XML files with certain ISO lists (e.g. language codes, country codes etc.) and translations of those lists in .mo form. We do not provide a library or any other program for accessing that data, just the data itself. Would it be possible for non-free programs to use that data (XML files and translations) if iso-codes is licensed under GPL? Or would we need to use the LGPL for this? Regards, Tobias [1] http://packages.debian.org/sid/iso-codes -- Tobias Toedter | I doubt, therefore I might be. Hamburg, Germany | signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Licensing of iso-codes
Tobias Toedter wrote: Hi, we, the maintainers of iso-codes[1], are currently discussing a licensing issue and are seeking some opinions from -legal subscribers. The problem is as follows: The package iso-codes provides XML files with certain ISO lists (e.g. language codes, country codes etc.) and translations of those lists in .mo form. We do not provide a library or any other program for accessing that data, just the data itself. Would it be possible for non-free programs to use that data (XML files and translations) if iso-codes is licensed under GPL? Or would we need to use the LGPL for this? I don't understand the purpose of your question ;-) If you want that non free program will use your XML, why do you publish it with a GPL or LGPL license? I think it is better to publish it in public domain on with one simple BSD or MIT license. Note: you question is about linking part of GPL, but if an non free program could use the code, it could also uses a second override file, so the modifing protection of GPL become inefective. or I missed something? ciao cate PS: IANAL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing of iso-codes
Tobias Toedter wrote: Would it be possible for non-free programs to use that data (XML files and translations) if iso-codes is licensed under GPL? Or would we need to use the LGPL for this? My first thought is what do you expect the GPL to do for you with this data set? I don't see how the license of a data file can affect the licensing status of a program that processes the data file. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anti-TPM clauses
Hi, The anti-TPM (technology protection measure, like DRM) in Creative Commons 3.0 has been extensively discussed on this list. Relevant part, in article 4a of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. There seem to be consensus that as long as there is no vote on it (similar to 2006_001), it's probably non-free, and best not put it in main. Correct? However, as a total non-lawyer type, I am confused about either the similarity or difference in another well-know anti-TDM clause: Relevant part, in article 3 of http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures. Could someone please decypher this legal mumbo-jumbo (I can barely read the CC, but have a harder time reading this text!) and tell me how this is different from the creative commons anti-TPM clause. What is the correct conclusion: 1. This is the same. Both licenses are non-free 2. This is the same. Both licenses are free 3. This is clearly totally different. The difference is Confusingly yours, Freek Dijkstra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SIM-IM uses default ICQ sounds
SIM-IM uses the default uh-oh sound from ICQ as a new message notification sound. While SIM-IM is GPLed, there is no specfic mention of the sound that I can find in the source package or on the upstream homepage. The file in question is /sim-0.9.4.2/plugins/sound/sounds/message.wav in the debian source directory. This sound is immediatly identifyable as the ICQ sound to pretty much anyone who has ever used the software even semi-regularly. Do sounds count as trademarks? If so, this likely is one. I figured I'd ask here before filing a bug or whatnot. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-incompatible [1]. The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the ftpmasters. Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here? http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ ). Also each rejected license should be documented (with the reasons why it is conflicting). Else it is hard to decide / understand whether a package should go to main. I've fixed the incorrect entry in the wiki and moved the MPL to the list of DFSG-compatible licenses (including links to archived postings by an FTP master) Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anti-TPM clauses
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Relevant part, in article 4a of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. There seem to be consensus that as long as there is no vote on it (similar to 2006_001), Note that votes like 2006-001 can only change what the Debian project will or will not do. Voting can't retroactively make a given set of license terms on a work free or non-free, any more than voting can change the value of pi. it's probably non-free, and best not put it in main. Correct? That's my understanding, yes. Largely on the basis that it's imposing a non-free restriction (You may not ...) on the recipient. However, as a total non-lawyer type, I am confused about either the similarity or difference in another well-know anti-TDM clause: Relevant part, in article 3 of http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures. Could someone please decypher this legal mumbo-jumbo (I can barely read the CC, but have a harder time reading this text!) and tell me how this is different from the creative commons anti-TPM clause. The main difference is that there's no you may not or you must. It is instead a declaration: the licensor, by choosing these license terms for a work, states explicitly that the work isn't an effective technological measure under copyright law. The intent is that this in effect prevents certain restrictive laws from applying to recipients of the work. What is the correct conclusion: [...] 3. This is clearly totally different. The difference is The difference is: one is a restriction, the other is not. -- \ Yesterday I parked my car in a tow-away zone. When I came back | `\ the entire area was missing. -- Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
