Licence of VO-DML files?

[Laurent Michel]

Markus,

Being not a lawyer I would say the licence applicable to the VODML files should be this of the standards on GitHub ( Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/>. )

Laurent
—
Translate with https://www.deepl.com/translator
-- 
jesuischarlie/Tunis/Paris/Bruxelles/Berlin

Laurent Michel
SSC XMM-Newton
Tél : +33 (0)3 68 85 24 37
Fax : +33 (0)3 )3 68 85 24 32
Université de Strasbourg <http://www.unistra.fr>
Observatoire Astronomique
11 Rue de l'Université
F - 67200 Strasbourg

> On 3 Nov 2020, at 12:46, Markus Demleitner <msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear DM,
> 
> I'm currently trying to get DaCHS into Debian main.  This requires
> that I'm figuring out the licences for all the various files I'm
> distributing.
> 
> Although right now, there's no operational necessity to do so,
> because of the various annotation experiments that ran in DaCHS over
> the time, there are a few VO-DML files in the package.  These, right
> now, have no explicit licence.  I'll *probably* get away with that,
> but, really, it would be better if I didn't have to worry about
> getting caught.
> 
> So... can we formulate a policy there?
> 
> My take: VO-DML files are close enough to software that we shouldn't
> use CC-X-Y (see
> https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software
> for the reasoning).  This would leave a software licence, and then
> we're knee-deep in the various incompatibilties.  Still, I think some
> version of the BSD or MIT licences might work; perhaps even the LGPL.
> The full GPL we certainly cannot afford.
> 
> Or we could go for CC-0, which is compatible to all software licences
> known to humankind (or so I think) and nicely works for
> software-linke things
> (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC0_to_computer_software.3F_If_so.2C_is_there_a_recommended_implementation.3F).
> It's also what our vocabularies (http://www.ivoa.net/rdf) use at the
> moment (and hopefully even after VocInVO2 is REC).
> 
> So... Do people have thoughts on this?  Action plans perhaps, even?
> 
>         -- Markus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dm/attachments/20201103/e5280de1/attachment-0001.html>