Re: MaintainerDatabase Copyright
>>"joost" == joost witteveen <email@example.com> writes:
>> How do we recncile the fact that the database it self shall *not*
>> be distributed at all, just reports are generated and distributed?
>> Can we use the GPL in that case?
joost> I'd say (I'm not a lawer, nor do I play one on TV, but I did
joost> once read the GPL:) that would be no problem.
The aspect of the GPL that concerns me is:
GPL> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
GPL> for making modifications to it.
When we are talking about mixing GPL and non-GPL sources, the
GPL sources are to be distributed, and that is what is edited as
needed. (You can't just distribute the output of lex/yacc, you have
to distribute the .l/.y source files, since that is what is normally
In our case the editable entity is our raw database, and that
can't be distributed, as it also contains the secret data.
I hypothesise that we can't use the GPL, if a copyright is
applicable in the first place, someone has said that what we are
talking about may not be copyrightable in the first place.
Even if copyrights are not applicable, can't we ``ask'' people
to foolow our guidelines, in lieu of legally binding copyrights and
It's better to be pissed off than pissed on.
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 .