[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files



On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 07:32:46 +0100 stressware2@ruggedinbox.com wrote:

> The package sgml-data includes non-Free files in the
> sgml/entities/sgml-iso-entities*/ directories and the
> sgml/html/entities/ directory under the following licence:
> 
>   'Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with conforming
>    SGML systems and applications as defined in ISO 8879, provided this
> notice is included in all copies.'
> 
> Unless 'conforming SGML systems and applications' is broadly defined in
> ISO 8879, then redistribution is highly restricted (I cannot check ISO
> 8879, because it seems there is no gratis copy).

I also think that this is a DFSG-freeness issue.

Please note that IANADD, I am just a Debian external contributor.
I don't speak on behalf of the Debian Project or of the Debian FTP
Masters: please contact them, if you want to know their opinion.

> 
> Files under the same licence are also included in linuxdoc-tools in the
> directories iso-entities/entities/ and entity-map/sdata/ (for
> example ISOtech).
> 
> Furthermore, files in the directory
> classpath/tools/resource/gnu/classpath/tools/gjdoc/dtd/ent/ in GCC are
> based on these files.

Among other things, I noticed that also fbreader includes files under
this same license:
https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/f/fbreader/copyright-0.12.10dfsg-10

But the awkward fact is that the debian/copyright file states that a
second (DFSG-free) license applies to the same files.
It's not clear to me whether both licenses apply (which would mean that
these files are non-free in fbreader too) or, instead, whether the
recipient may choose which of the two licenses will apply (which would
mean that we can choose the second license and everything is fine for
fbreader).
Maybe a serious bug report should be filed against fbreader about this.

> 
> The SGML entity files are needed to build documentation for several projects.
> 
> It seems like it would be difficult to write the SGML entity files much
> differently, so it is possible that they are not copyrightable.

IANAL, so I cannot say for sure whether these files may be considered
as not copyrighted.
I don't know whether the Debian Project Leader is willing to ask the
SFLC to examine this issue...


Any other opinion from debian-legal regulars?

-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpLH_5vFDyH9.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: