Re: MaintainerDatabase Copyright
>>"Richard" == Richard Braakman <email@example.com> writes:
Richard> Before I go on, I should state my basic assumption: that
Richard> Manoj is asserting some sort of compilation copyright and a
Richard> license for the compilation, which is not related to the
Richard> licenses for the data collected. If this is not the case,
Richard> then please explain who is copyrighting and licensing what.
Richard> I do not think that it is a good idea to forbid modifications
Richard> to the database. There is no danger in allowing them: such
Richard> modified versions will be clearly marked (per the GPL), and
Richard> in any case recipients are not likely to put much faith in a
Richard> list that they did not receive directly from a Debian person
Richard> or site.
However, this is not the opinion of some other peole who have
emailed me. I do not want to legally allow any tom, dick, or
harriette to legally alter my information; and I am not alone. As far
as I see it now, we have 4 for and 5 against. This is not quite a
Richard> On the other hand, consider the effects of forbidding them:
Richard> - The database project becomes non-free, in the sense that
Richard> Manoj is the only one with the right to update the database,
Richard> unless he explicitly transfers that right. There will be no
Richard> way to do the equivalent of a "non-maintainer release".
The copyright holders include SPI, so the Debian community can
always update this database. The other person who is the copyright
holder is designated as the Debian maintainer database maintainer,
which shall change from time to time as the Debian project
decides. At the moment, it is <blah>. I do not think that a
non-maintainer release is really very desirable either, from a
Richard> - The license would block (or at least hinder) legitimate
Richard> uses of the database. Joost already gave some examples of
Richard> these. I doubt that they all fit under a "personal use"
Richard> clause. Some may involve mailing extracts of the list around
Richard> to other developers. It seems unwise to restrict all future
Richard> use of the database to that what can be imagined now.
I'm willing to lsten to how to update the licence. I do not
wish to block legitimate uses of the data.
Richard> - Everyone who looks at the database will from then on have
Richard> to worry about the terms of the license. What uses are
Richard> "reasonable"? When is something a "modification"? If I add
Richard> two digits of precision to my latitude and longtitude, am I
Richard> breaking the law?
If you add precision to my location, and distribute it, hell,
yes, and I would prosecute, too. I have given a lot of thought to
exactly how precise the data is (I have a location down to 10m on my
property, but I'm not distributing that).
Richard> I think this is a case where forbidding something is more
Richard> trouble than it's worth. Remember that you are invoking
Richard> legal force here. That is overkill.
In your opinion.
"I have been poor and I have been rich. Rich is better." Sophie
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .