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

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl <alexander@schmehl.info>]

Hi!

* Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> [120120 15:41]:

> > 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.

As far as I can see, the package is indeed distributable, but not fit
for main.
I therefore close the bug cloned for snapshot.d.o (sorry for the noise)
and will remove the package from main soonish.


> >  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.

Yes, fit for non-free not for main.  And the whole license should be
added to debian/copyright (and an unofficial translation would be
usefull, too).


> >  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.

Well, in some legislations "reproduction" includes limited modifications
rights, however not enough for main (and not in .eu).  So yes, unfit for
main, unless clarified to include rights for modifications.


Best Regards,
  Alexander