Licence of VO-DML files?

[Patrick Dowler]

I always thought of the VO-DML file as a machine-readable description of
the standard, so it is in between document and software (like xsd, but xsd
seems closer to implementation so a little more like s/w).

Why would you distribute VO-DML files with the s/w? To avoid downloading
them from a URL at build time or runtime? I will admit to being lazy and
putting copies of (IVOA) XSD files into source to avoid the pain* of
getting them during the build (I definitely want the s/w to be stable and
robust from then on so would not want to get them periodically at
runtime)...

* both transient build failures when ivoa.net fails and to avoid having
rogue build/test/CI beating up on ivoa.net servers
--
Patrick Dowler
Canadian Astronomy Data Centre
Victoria, BC, Canada


On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 08:27, Laurent Michel <laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr>
wrote:

> 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/
> The VODML XSD is a part of the standard, therefore it is also  under
> 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/abec0257/attachment.html>