[moved to tech-pkg; see https://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-changes/2021/02/20/msg229535.html https://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-changes/2021/02/21/msg229543.html https://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-changes/2021/02/22/msg229633.html ] Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> writes: >> 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... Many Free Software license have termination conditions, such as GPL2 (section 4), so I don't see that as unusual or particularly concerning. Separately from reading the text, I am familiar with this license within the OpenStreetMap community. OSM used to use cc-by-sa, but it turns out that database copyright is complicated legally because different jurisdictions have different notions about databases. In particular the US does not recognize database rights, and Europe does. That caused cc-by-sa to not really work in Europe for databases. AIUI, the ODbL was written so that it would be valid in the various jurisdictions. I can understand your concern about similar-to-AGPL, but I don't think this license is like that. It defines Convey: "Convey" - As a verb, means Using the Database, a Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database in any way that enables a Person to make or receive copies of the Database or a Derivative Database. Conveying does not include interaction with a user through a computer network, or creating and Using a Produced Work, where no transfer of a copy of the Database or a Derivative Database occurs. So that means that rendering a map based on an ODbL-licensed database, as you would see at https://www.openstreetmap.org/, is not "Conveying". As an aside for context about AGPL, I think there are multiple things going on that lead to concerns for pkgsrc and the resulting "AGPL may not be in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE even though it is Free". Some people within the pkgsrc community are offended by AGPL and don't like it. The notion that someone could install something and configure a web server and have an obligation to distribute the unmodified version they got. This is not that big a deal (because it's already available) and I have not heard of anyone being hassled about this. And, most AGPL web services are set up for a "source download" button. The notion that someone could get something from pkgsrc, spend effort to make modifications that they want to keep secret and then use it as a web service because they don't understand because they relied on pkgsrc's license labeling. I think this is a strawman and haven't heard of a case. I'm also unsympathetic, as anyone trying to make proprietary modifications to Free Software needs to understand what they are doing and I very strongly believe that it is not pkgsrc's job to do this for people. The situation where there are two distinct usages of AGPL: 1) projects that are entirely Free Sofware that wish to prevent proprietary derived works being used outside of organization, and 2) "projects" that engage in "proprietary dual licensing" where the primary intent is to sell proprietary licenses. Type 2 projects tend to be heavyhanded about AGPL terms to sell licenses. Broadly, the hard-core Free Software world views Type 1 as legitimate and Type 2 as not. Overall, if there were only Type 1 uses, I think that we might not have ended up where we did. I am not aware of anything licensed under ODbL that is Type 2. The license is long, but I think that's because it's modern and aimed at some complex provisions of EU law, not only database rights but also moral rights, while also trying to function in the US and other jurisdictions. There is a share-alike provision, but I see it as GPL-like, not AGPL-like. Suppose you modify the database, and then make a map from it, and then publish that map. You are required to provide the modified database. This is like modifying source code and creating a binary and putting that binary on your web server; the database is like source and the rendered map is like a binary (it is not editable, and it is the form that users use). The AGPL, in contrast, triggers the requirement to distribute if you let someone interact with the program but do not transfer a binary to them. In the OSM world, in terms of the proprietary dual licensing concern OSM is firmly Type 1, I have heard zero of any Type 2 enforcement/agitation. All of the angst -- which is considerable -- is about people that produce maps from OSM data and fail to provide the required attribution. This is akin to compiling source code and removing copyright notices. You did raise a good question, but after digging into it more I conclude that ODbL V1 belongs in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE under our current policies. I am curious what's to be imported that's going to use it...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature