<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Markus,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’ve a question: </div><div class="">What is exactly covered by a licence on a e.g. VODML file, the content of the structure?</div><div class="">The VODML standard is under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" class="">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/</a></div><div class="">The VODML XSD is a part of the standard, therefore it is also under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" class="">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/</a></div><div class="">Can I licence a VODML file, issued from that XSD, with any licence?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Laurent</div><div class=""> <br class=""><div class="">
<div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div>—</div><div>Translate with <a href="https://www.deepl.com/translator" class="">https://www.deepl.com/translator</a></div><div class="">-- <br class="">jesuischarlie/Tunis/Paris/Bruxelles/Berlin<br class=""><br class="">Laurent Michel<br class="">SSC XMM-Newton<br class="">Tél : +33 (0)3 68 85 24 37<br class="">Fax : +33 (0)3 )3 68 85 24 32<br class="">Université de Strasbourg <<a href="http://www.unistra.fr" class="">http://www.unistra.fr</a>><br class="">Observatoire Astronomique<br class="">11 Rue de l'Université<br class="">F - 67200 Strasbourg</div></div>
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 3 Nov 2020, at 16:47, Markus Demleitner <<a href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de" class="">msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Dear Laurent,<br class=""><br class="">On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 03:36:24PM +0100, Laurent Michel wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Being not a lawyer I would say the licence applicable to the VODML<br class="">files should be this of the standards on GitHub ( Creative Commons<br class="">Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License<br class=""><<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" class="">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/</a>>. )<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Hm -- remember how I argued against CC-BY-SA because it doesn't do<br class="">what people think it does ("make people reference us") but causes<br class="">problems down the road? Well, this is such a problem (I had not<br class="">expected that to arrive so early). As they say on<br class=""><a href="https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software:" class="">https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software:</a><br class=""><br class=""> Additionally, our licenses are currently not compatible with the<br class=""> major software licenses, so it would be difficult to integrate<br class=""> CC-licensed work with other free software.<br class=""><br class="">-- which is why I'm here: I'd like to distribute VO-DML with DaCHS<br class="">(which is GPL-3) and get the thing past the piercing eyes of the<br class="">Debian ftpmasters who are perfectly aware of the incompatibilities of<br class="">CC-BY-SA and the GPL.<br class=""><br class="">Since it seems the CC-BY-SA decision on the document won't be<br class="">reversed (and for the documents themselves there's no overriding need<br class="">to), we ought to do something for VO-DML files specifically -- or<br class="">they'll always been painful when distributing software that embeds<br class="">them.<br class=""><br class="">Which, I think, boils down to choosing between CC0 (which is<br class="">compatible with the GPL and other sotware licences) or using a<br class="">software licence (presumably one of LGPL, MIT, or BSD). Not doing<br class="">anything will be pain later on.<br class=""><br class="">As I said, for simplicity I'd go with CC-0, but I'd be easily swayed.<br class=""><br class=""> -- Markus<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>