Ole Streicher <oleb...@debian.org> writes: > Again, as shown here: this license covers *software*, not *data*.
That's not a distinction that matters for the question at hand. Any work, regardless of how you might categorise it, if it is to be in Debian must conform to the DFSG. > Data is fundamentally different from software Whatever those differences may be, they don't change the required freedoms to the recipient, for the work to be in Debian. > for example, there is no "source code" for DE405. There is just no > "preferred way to edit" for such a database -- these database are > created from observation and not thought to be edited by hand. The freedoms that the recipients are to be granted, to satisfy the DFSG, are not limited by what the original distributors imagine. It does not matter what categories you say the work is in or not in. It does not matter whether the original distributor can or cannot imagine why they might want to do that. If a recipient of Debian gets it into their head, for any reason or no reason, to modify and re-distribute the work, the Debian Social Contract promises that they are permitted to do that; so the work's copyright license must permit that. > So, it is just wrong to apply software licenses to databases like DE405. That's contrary to the position of the FTP masters, and contrary to the Debian Social Contract §1. -- \ “I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make | `\ an exception.” —Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney
