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

Re: Bug#656573: RM: freediams -- ROM; Non-free data used in package

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 03:26:08PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Please seek for "drugs/master.db" to find the relevant licensing
> information about the compilation of data.  As far as I understand
> upstream upstream the database in the old version is featuring the same
> data sources in older version (but unlikely with different licenses).
> In case the version in Squeeze would be considered free also all
> other versions are free (which would be *really* good news).  So
> please, please prove me wrong in my opinion that this database is
> not distributable.  I'm specifically concerned about:

I'm not an FTP master, though.

>  3) French drugs database and drug-drug interaction (starting point): http://afssaps-prd.afssaps.fr/php/ecodex
>     License: free for non commercial use © AFSSAPS
>     License terms: http://www.afssaps.fr/Mentions-legales

So it's distributable and basically of the same nature than the other
data sources, except that they are claiming that copyright applies
because of a different jurisdiction.

And it's just about drugs-fr_FR.db, which might belong to non-free if
such a declarative collection of entries needs to adhere to the DFSG.

>  6) Eudapharm drugs database partially used
>     License:.
>     License terms: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000178.jsp&jsenabled=true
>       In particular, unless otherwise stated, the Agency, according.
>       to current European Union and international legislation1, is the owner of.
>       copyright and database rights of this website and its contents.
>       .
>       Information and documents made available on the Agency's webpages are public.
>       and may be reproduced and/or distributed, totally or in part, irrespective of the.
>       means and/or the formats used, for non-commercial and commercial purposes, provided
>       that the Agency is always acknowledged as the source of the material. Such
>       acknowledgement must be included in each copy of the material.
>     ...

What's the problem with that?  The missing license to allow
modification?  Even then it would still be distributable, which is
distinct from not belonging into main.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: