On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 07:03:05PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote: > On 2014-09-18 21:18+0100 Phil Rosenberg wrote: > > > Hi Alan and Andrew > > > The shapelib files from Ordnance Survey are my doing. You are right > Alan that they are under licence rather than in the public domain, > however, I used them specifically because they were available under an > open type licence. > > I agree this license seems fine.
Fine. The debian copyright notice is for the packages of the current release (5.10.0) which does not contain these files. The copyright notice came from data/README.shapefiles, which relates to the original shapefiles used for the plmap, not the extra ones Phil has recently added for the Exmoor example. We should clarify the wording of data/README.shapefiles. > > I did look hard and ordnance survey was the best > source of files under any kind of open licence. I didn't find anything > with a LGPL licence, so unless someone wants to generate maps of their > own then we will almost certainly have to live with different licences > here. > > Agreed. > > > I would have thought that the details I put in the folder with > the files would suffice for the credit required by the licence. In > fact this was the licence info provided to me. However I can see you > might want to add details to the copyright file. I can do this, but > don't want to cause a clash with Andrew's work. > > Yes, I think Andrew should probably do the adjustment of the Copyright > file since he is the one having to deal with bug reports about > licensing. I will - for the next release. > @Andrew: > The next paragraph is all my opinion, but I don't feel strongly about > it. Therefore, if you decide to deal with this license another way, > that is fine with me. > > The function of the Copyright file is ideally to collect all > information for all licenses in one place. However, this license for > the Exmoor shapefile data is a fairly long license in PDF format > rather than text so it should probably suffice to state in the > Copyright file that the files in data/ss are subject to the licensing > terms at > http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/docs/os-opendata-licence.pdf. > This is almost exactly redundant with what Phil states in > data/ss/os_open_conditions.txt, but such redundancy is fine, and that > file explaining the licensing should remain with the data. I agree - unless it proves to be controversial. You never can tell, particularly when it comes to free / non-free licensing and Debian. Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Plplot-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
