On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:34:36PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes: > > This license is not actually DFSG-free; it grants the right to make > > copies, to use copies for creating products, and to distribute copies > > *internally*, but it does not grant the right to distribute copies > > publically or to modify the file. > The perceived consensus in 2002 was that the license is DFSG-free, but > this is not my point. (However, sometimes I think it's easier to > intepret the license itself than the result of the discussion about it > on this list.) Hmm, I've reviewed the archives and it looks like you're right here. > > So if the data is copyrightable, then the license is not DFSG-free; and > > if it's not copyrightable, no license (or license notice) is necessary. > This contradicts the RMS's interpretation of the issues on the > emacs-devel mailing list (sorry, no direct link). He thinks that the > UCD is copyrightable, and the "extraction clause" is the loophole we > can use. > However, it's still rather impolite not to honour the explicit request > for credits, and the credits is all what is required to make the > Unicode Consortium happy. Is it? That's not what the license says; if we're shipping copies of the file, the copyrightability is very relevant. If we are only including extracted parts of the file, then our usage seems to comply with the proffered license, and it seems reasonable in the interest of politeness to include the requested notice is /u/s/d/p/copyright; however, I maintain that there is no legal obligation to do so. Is /usr/share/perl/5.8.0/unicore/UnicodeData.txt a copy of the file, or an "extracted" form of it? As I read the license, the file is only freely redistributable *after* you've modified it -- unless the file is not actually copyrightable and the license is not binding. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpDrJuJ6kO93.pgp
Description: PGP signature