On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > I guess from our point of view the decision is whether the donation of > that data can be considered voluntary, as the ownership of the > original data is somewhat unclear. The header of the original data > file [2] states that "the information listed here has been collected > by many different people from many different countries", but in [1] a > copyright on that data is asserted.
> [2] http://openddr.org/takedown.html (looks down right now, Google > cache at http://s.apache.org/openddr_cache just in case) Here's the header as captured from the Google cache: Dear Developer, the WURFL file contains information about the capabilities of mobile devices, capabilities and features. The main scope of this file is to collect as many information as we can about all the existing wireless devices that access mobile pages so that developers will be able to build better applications and better services for the users. This project is open-source and is intended for developers working with the WAP environment. All the information listed here has been collected by many different people from many different countries. You are allowed to use WURFL in any of your applications, free or commercial. The only thing required is to make public any modification to this file, following the original spirit and idea of the creators of this project. This will help WURFL to grow better and better every day. The use of WURFL is at your own risk, there is no warranty that all agents and capabilities are correct. All the information, as stated, has been gathered by many users from many places around the world and as such there is no guarantee about the reliability of this information. Post any noteworthy modification and comment to the file on the WMLProgramming mailing list on Yahoo Groups: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ Alternatively, you can mail your modification to Luca Passani, the WURFL maintainer, at passani at eunet dot no IANAL, but I don't see anything about copyright assignment in there, and so my interpretation is that all the original contributors maintain their copyright but have granted implicit license for use under the terms described in that header -- assuming that that header has been there since the beginning with the same wording. There are many copyright holders who are not going to be participating in this grant. Don't we usually require 100% of copyright holders for a grant? If that's not going to happen this time, what is the rationale for the exceptional case? It seems to me that we are as free as anyone else to use the data under the terms of that header, but I'm unclear about releasing it as ASF code under the ALv2. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
