Licence of VO-DML files?

[Laurent Michel]

Markus,

I wasn’t aware about the licence compliance and I agree that things must be done is a way that (legally) facilitates the dissemination of our work. 

I’ve a question: 
What is exactly covered by a licence on a e.g. VODML file, the content of the structure?
The VODML standard is under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/>
The VODML XSD is a part of the standard, therefore it is also  under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/>
Can I licence a VODML file, issued from that XSD, with any licence?

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 16:47, Markus Demleitner <msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear Laurent,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 03:36:24PM +0100, Laurent Michel wrote:
>> 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/>. )
> 
> Hm -- remember how I argued against CC-BY-SA because it doesn't do
> what people think it does ("make people reference us") but causes
> problems down the road?  Well, this is such a problem (I had not
> expected that to arrive so early).  As they say on
> https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software:
> 
>  Additionally, our licenses are currently not compatible with the
>  major software licenses, so it would be difficult to integrate
>  CC-licensed work with other free software.
> 
> -- which is why I'm here: I'd like to distribute VO-DML with DaCHS
> (which is GPL-3) and get the thing past the piercing eyes of the
> Debian ftpmasters who are perfectly aware of the incompatibilities of
> CC-BY-SA and the GPL.
> 
> Since it seems the CC-BY-SA decision on the document won't be
> reversed (and for the documents themselves there's no overriding need
> to), we ought to do something for VO-DML files specifically -- or
> they'll always been painful when distributing software that embeds
> them.
> 
> Which, I think, boils down to choosing between CC0 (which is
> compatible with the GPL and other sotware licences) or using a
> software licence (presumably one of LGPL, MIT, or BSD).  Not doing
> anything will be pain later on.
> 
> As I said, for simplicity I'd go with CC-0, but I'd be easily swayed.
> 
>       -- Markus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dm/attachments/20201104/88d6b683/attachment.html>