License question
I guess some of you have thought about licensing issues, so might be able to help me. I have some code that can't be included in the Debian project because it doesn't work without some bundled data. The bundled data is free (as in beer), but has a non-Debian-compliant license (it cannot be used to spam people). I can avoid bundling the data by having a second program that does know about the data write the program I wish to distribute. A bit tortuous, but if it avoids the licensing clash, probably worth the effort. But does it avoid the licensing clash? --nwetters
Re: License question
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:59:52AM +0100, Nigel Wetters wrote: I have some code that can't be included in the Debian project because it doesn't work without some bundled data. The bundled data is free (as in beer), but has a non-Debian-compliant license (it cannot be used to spam people). It does sound non-free, I'm afraid - if the data is an integral part of the program, then it makes the program non-free. But, it would very much depend on the interaction between the program and the data. If it's impossible to use the program without the data, then my instinct says it's non-free (it's not just non-DFSG-free, but sounds like non-FSF- free and non-OSI-open too). The only option open to you would be to replace the non-free data with free data - this happens on a fairly frequent basis. Look up the recent debian-legal discussion on Unicode tables. Cheers, Alex.
Re: License question
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Nigel Wetters wrote: I can avoid bundling the data by having a second program that does know about the data write the program I wish to distribute. A bit tortuous, but if it avoids the licensing clash, probably worth the effort. But does it avoid the licensing clash? Maybe add a -datafile option that allows you to specify the files location (and include in --help a URL for where to the the free-as-in-beer one) the hatter
Re: License question
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:59, Nigel Wetters wrote: I have some code that can't be included in the Debian project because it doesn't work without some bundled data. The bundled data is free (as in beer), but has a non-Debian-compliant license (it cannot be used to spam people). Oh, excellent, so it has all of the drawbacks with none of the advantages of an open source license then! Does anyone *really* think that putting a clause against using a piece of software to spam in the license will work? -- Sam Vilain, [EMAIL PROTECTED] An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Re: License question
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Nigel Wetters wrote: I guess some of you have thought about licensing issues, so might be able to help me. I have some code that can't be included in the Debian project because it doesn't work without some bundled data. The bundled data is free (as in beer), but has a non-Debian-compliant license (it cannot be used to spam people). I can only assume that the data includes personal identifying data such as email addresses if it can be used in such a manner. Why not simply remove the data altogether and release the application with notes on how to build the required data. Then the application can stand on it's own. So long as it does not depend upon the specific data you provide that should work and you could still include details in the readme file of the data you have available and where it can be obtained. I would comment however that if you are publishing such identifying data you probably require the explicit consent of those identified in it. Jason Clifford -- UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net http://www.ukfsn.org/ ADSL Broadband available now
Re: License question
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Jason Clifford wrote: I can only assume that the data includes personal identifying data such as email addresses if it can be used in such a manner. No. The original data source contains these identifiers. I am bundling data that has been stripped of all identifers, but it is still derived from the data that has been released under the restrictive license. Why not simply remove the data altogether and release the application with notes on how to build the required data. Ah. I probably need to explain a bit more. Here is the link to the module in question (note the licenses at the bottom): http://search.cpan.org/author/NWETTERS/IP-Country-2.14/lib/IP/Authority.pm The module's purpose is to identify the regional Internet registry where an IP address was registered. The only people who need this are writing an interface to the whois system. My module allows them to reduce the amount of calls they make to the whois servers. I cannot imagine how the remaining data could be used for spamming, but the license still is incompatible with debian. There are instructions within the CPAN distribution about how to build the database that is used by the module, but it involves a 300MB download and a 1-hour parse of the data (taking 600MB of RAM). The usefulness of my module is that this work has already been done. I could dispense with the database if I created a second (non-distributed) program that used the database to build the distributed program. Does the distributed program still need to carry the liceses for the original data?? --nwetters
Re: License question
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 01:18:50PM +0100, Nigel Wetters wrote: I could dispense with the database if I created a second (non-distributed) program that used the database to build the distributed program. Does the distributed program still need to carry the liceses for the original data?? I don't understand what you're suggesting here - are you saying that by writing a second program which produces the first, you somehow get around the copyright of the data? Unlikely. 'Specially in the UK, we have the concept of the copyright of a database. I would take a look at the Unicode and GNU miscutils discussion I pointed you at; it sounds like that might be a solution, but you probably need to check with an actual lawyer. debian-legal is again the place to raise this. Cheers, Alex.
Re: License question
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Alex Hudson wrote: On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 01:18:50PM +0100, Nigel Wetters wrote: I could dispense with the database if I created a second (non-distributed) program that used the database to build the distributed program. Does the distributed program still need to carry the liceses for the original data?? I don't understand what you're suggesting here - are you saying that by writing a second program which produces the first, you somehow get around the copyright of the data? Unlikely. The programs as distributed are then free. Any data they generate using third party sources might not be. This is valid. A distribution of the generated data is not free. S. -- Shevekhttp://www.anarres.org/ I am the Borg. http://www.gothnicity.org/
