<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">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).<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">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)... <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">* both transient build failures when <a href="http://ivoa.net">ivoa.net</a> fails and to avoid having rogue build/test/CI beating up on <a href="http://ivoa.net">ivoa.net</a> servers<br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div>--<br></div><div>Patrick Dowler<br></div>Canadian Astronomy Data Centre<br></div>Victoria, BC, Canada<br></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 08:27, Laurent Michel <<a href="mailto:laurent.michel@astro.unistra.fr">laurent.michel@astro.unistra.fr</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">Markus,<div><br></div><div>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><br></div><div>I’ve a question: </div><div>What is exactly covered by a licence on a e.g. VODML file, the content of the structure?</div><div>The VODML standard is under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/</a></div><div>The VODML XSD is a part of the standard, therefore it is also under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/</a></div><div>Can I licence a VODML file, issued from that XSD, with any licence?</div><div><br></div><div>Laurent</div><div> <br><div>
<div dir="auto" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none"><div>—</div><div>Translate with <a href="https://www.deepl.com/translator" target="_blank">https://www.deepl.com/translator</a></div><div>-- <br>jesuischarlie/Tunis/Paris/Bruxelles/Berlin<br><br>Laurent Michel<br>SSC XMM-Newton<br>Tél : +33 (0)3 68 85 24 37<br>Fax : +33 (0)3 )3 68 85 24 32<br>Université de Strasbourg <<a href="http://www.unistra.fr" target="_blank">http://www.unistra.fr</a>><br>Observatoire Astronomique<br>11 Rue de l'Université<br>F - 67200 Strasbourg</div></div>
</div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 3 Nov 2020, at 16:47, Markus Demleitner <<a href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de" target="_blank">msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div>Dear Laurent,<br><br>On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 03:36:24PM +0100, Laurent Michel wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Being not a lawyer I would say the licence applicable to the VODML<br>files should be this of the standards on GitHub ( Creative Commons<br>Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License<br><<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/</a>>. )<br></blockquote><br>Hm -- remember how I argued against CC-BY-SA because it doesn't do<br>what people think it does ("make people reference us") but causes<br>problems down the road? Well, this is such a problem (I had not<br>expected that to arrive so early). As they say on<br><a href="https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software:" target="_blank">https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software:</a><br><br> Additionally, our licenses are currently not compatible with the<br> major software licenses, so it would be difficult to integrate<br> CC-licensed work with other free software.<br><br>-- which is why I'm here: I'd like to distribute VO-DML with DaCHS<br>(which is GPL-3) and get the thing past the piercing eyes of the<br>Debian ftpmasters who are perfectly aware of the incompatibilities of<br>CC-BY-SA and the GPL.<br><br>Since it seems the CC-BY-SA decision on the document won't be<br>reversed (and for the documents themselves there's no overriding need<br>to), we ought to do something for VO-DML files specifically -- or<br>they'll always been painful when distributing software that embeds<br>them.<br><br>Which, I think, boils down to choosing between CC0 (which is<br>compatible with the GPL and other sotware licences) or using a<br>software licence (presumably one of LGPL, MIT, or BSD). Not doing<br>anything will be pain later on.<br><br>As I said, for simplicity I'd go with CC-0, but I'd be easily swayed.<br><br> -- Markus<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div>