My own opinions below (not any sort of ftp* anything) On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:15:11PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > A database of place names. Read in as data when the program runs. > > If these attribute files are really just data read at run-time by the > program, I think that the license incompatibility should not be a > re-distribution legal issue. > Correct. > > Anyway, persuading the copyright holder(s) of these attribute files to > re-license (or dual-license) them under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 > would erase any doubt... This is absurd at best; there's no need to do this. Such works as place-name databases are perfectly fine under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or better. (inb4 you tell us how much you hate CC-BY and it's not free to you, and the ftp-masters made a mistake) In fact, many works are *better* licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 than GPL-2 or 3, since the GPL's terms are much better fit for code (just as you'd not ask someone to license code under CC-BY-SA, since that's also silly) In addition, this is an absurd claim to start; the GIMP is GPL-3, can we not edit CC-BY-SA images in the GIMP? The GIMP reads these files at runtime, too! I don't think it's not a combined work if it's reading the data file at runtime. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature