Re: Serious problem with geoip - databases could not be build from source
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:37:56 +0200, Patrick Matthäi <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 1. maxmind. Web page show that C code is under LGPL but data files
>> are under Open Data License (BSD-like + fixed text acknowledgment --
>> slightly non-free?). However Debian copyright file lists only LGPL.
>> Patrick, is it an informed decision or a bug?
> I am aware of it, my plan was to fix first the source -> dat problem and
> then in the same way the license.
> The license for the source database is free.
>> 2. tor-geoipdb. First, license is not very clean and also contains
>> fixed text acknowledgment -- is it free? Second, "Some parts of the
>> IP-to-Country Database are derived from APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE
>> databases whose copyright details are given below" and lack free
>> licenses. Undistributable?
>> Debian copyright file doesn't include "RIR Licenses" part for some
>> 3. http://software77.net/geo-ip/ . How is it possible for their data
>> to be licensed under GPL when the data seems to come directly from
> Is this *realy* our job? We do not know from where the data is and if
>From their FAQ ( http://software77.net/faq.html ):
Q. I found an IP you don't have in your database. Can I sent it to you?
Please don't! We cannot add or remove IPs from the database. The
process we use is automated and the IPs in the database are as as we
get them from the various registries around the world. If a registry
does not list an IP the only way to get it in our database is for
the registry to add it to their database. We can't do that.
Initial data is from registries. And the final data is a result of
automated process. So I don't see how they claim any copyright on it.
> they come from RIR => maybe there is some silent acknowledgment.
That's possibile but in this case I expect to see at least copyright
notices of RIRs. The only copyright notice in .csv is
# © 2002-2009 Webnet77.com
> Also someone noted in the thread (I think on devel it was) that the data
> may be used in limited editions (e.g. only the associated country, but
> not the contact informations).
Then it would be in public domain?