Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/licenses

[Ryo ONODERA <ryo%tetera.org@localhost>]

Hi,

Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> writes:

> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 08:33:29PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> 
>> "Ryo ONODERA" <ryoon%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:
>> 
>> > Module Name:       pkgsrc
>> > Committed By:      ryoon
>> > Date:              Sat Feb 20 21:59:31 UTC 2021
>> >
>> > Added Files:
>> >    pkgsrc/licenses: odbl-v1-license
>> >
>> > Log Message:
>> > licenses: Add odbl-v1-license for ODC Open Database License (ODbL)
>> 
>> My immediate reaction is that ODBL should not have a suffix and be in
>> DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE, although I was not sure that this was justifiable by
>> our current rules.
>> 
>> However, I found that the FSF considers this to be a Free license:
>> 
>>   https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ODbl
>> 
>> Thus, I think this should be renamed to odbl-v1 and put in
>> DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE.  I am guessing this is not controversial.
>
> Are you sure? The text is very long and I'm not sure how similar it is to
> the AGPL. Language like the termination of the license certainly don't
> sit well...
>
> Joerg

At first, ODbl 1.0 was added for upcoming inputmethod/rime-cantonese.
However I have found that rime-cantonese and fcitx5-rime have
technical problem just before commit and I will not add rime-cantonese
for a while longer.


My English reading skill is poor to evaluate the legal documents as you
know, however I do not think ODbl is fearful as AGPL.

In my opinion, the database in rime-cantonese may not be copyrighted
in Japan at least. It seems that it has no significant
originality/creativity required by Japanese copyright law.


I have no idea whether ODbl should be added to DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE license
list or not.
If ODbl is like AGPL, it should not be added DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE
without the core decision.

Thank you.

-- 
Ryo ONODERA // ryo%tetera.org@localhost
PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB  FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3