[opensuse-m17n] Problems with edict package license
Hi, It seems that the edict license is unaceptable for openSUSE, so it was dropped from openSUSE Factory (12.2 and beyond) 7 weeks ago. And all packages which requires/build require it oo. https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/125777 The packages envolved are (in parenthesys the delete request #): edict (125777) edict-emacs (125778) gjiten (126216) javadict (126217) xjdic (126288) xyaku (126289) All of them are in state broken in M17N repository (because of the _link it has with factory - except edict and edict-emacs that I remove this _link and it builds ok) I'm asking what sohuld we do in M17N? Drop these packages too? Try to build without edict? Move it to Non OSS or maybe Packman? Ask for help on what to do in similar cases on another list? (opensuse-factory/-packaging) I don't use this packages, I note it while doing some cleanups on M17N (basically desabling sled repositories with unresolvable state) Regards, Luiz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+owner@opensuse.org
Hello, Sorry, I didn't noticed that. I'm also not a user of this package but as far as I know, the most part of the edict package is distributed under the Creative Commons License: http://www.edrdg.org/edrdg/licence.html I'll check which file restricts the license of this package later. Best regards, Fuminobu TAKEYAMA (2012/08/20 8:15), Luiz Fernando Ranghetti wrote:
Hi,
It seems that the edict license is unaceptable for openSUSE, so it was dropped from openSUSE Factory (12.2 and beyond) 7 weeks ago. And all packages which requires/build require it oo.
https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/125777
The packages envolved are (in parenthesys the delete request #):
edict (125777) edict-emacs (125778) gjiten (126216) javadict (126217) xjdic (126288) xyaku (126289)
All of them are in state broken in M17N repository (because of the _link it has with factory - except edict and edict-emacs that I remove this _link and it builds ok)
I'm asking what sohuld we do in M17N? Drop these packages too? Try to build without edict? Move it to Non OSS or maybe Packman? Ask for help on what to do in similar cases on another list? (opensuse-factory/-packaging)
I don't use this packages, I note it while doing some cleanups on M17N (basically desabling sled repositories with unresolvable state)
Regards,
Luiz
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+owner@opensuse.org
2012/8/20 Fuminobu TAKEYAMA <ftake@geeko.jp>:
Hello,
Sorry, I didn't noticed that.
I'm also not a user of this package but as far as I know, the most part of the edict package is distributed under the Creative Commons License: http://www.edrdg.org/edrdg/licence.html
I'll check which file restricts the license of this package later.
Best regards,
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA
(2012/08/20 8:15), Luiz Fernando Ranghetti wrote:
Hi,
It seems that the edict license is unaceptable for openSUSE, so it was dropped from openSUSE Factory (12.2 and beyond) 7 weeks ago. And all packages which requires/build require it oo.
https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/125777
The packages envolved are (in parenthesys the delete request #):
edict (125777) edict-emacs (125778) gjiten (126216) javadict (126217) xjdic (126288) xyaku (126289)
All of them are in state broken in M17N repository (because of the _link it has with factory - except edict and edict-emacs that I remove this _link and it builds ok)
I'm asking what sohuld we do in M17N? Drop these packages too? Try to build without edict? Move it to Non OSS or maybe Packman? Ask for help on what to do in similar cases on another list? (opensuse-factory/-packaging)
I don't use this packages, I note it while doing some cleanups on M17N (basically desabling sled repositories with unresolvable state)
Regards,
Luiz
Hi, The SUSE Legal Team could help, as they point this package to exclusion on openSUSE Factory. I've CC'ed Cian Farrell, which can help use. Regards, Luiz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+owner@opensuse.org
Hi all, I found that 1. Licenses of some small dictionary files in edict are unclear 2. KANJIDIC's license is CC Attribution-ShareAlike V3.0 with special condition For 1., I think we should just remove such dictionaries. 2. is troublesome. Mile Fabian once got special permission to distribute KANJIDIC that includes "SKIP field"; the copyright of that field is hold by Jack Halpern. The current license of this package come from this special permission. # The email he sent to Jack is found in jack-halpern-copyright-mbox. The author originally requires royalty for commercial product: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/kanjidic_doc.html#IREF14 This dictionary is needed by gjiten at least. I guess only a few people uses these packages. I'll ask Japanese community, including other distributions guys, how they think. # Debian and Ubuntu still have kanjidic packages. Fedora does not. Fuminobu TAKEYAMA (2012/08/21 5:32), Luiz Fernando Ranghetti wrote:
2012/8/20 Fuminobu TAKEYAMA <ftake@geeko.jp>:
Hello,
Sorry, I didn't noticed that.
I'm also not a user of this package but as far as I know, the most part of the edict package is distributed under the Creative Commons License: http://www.edrdg.org/edrdg/licence.html
I'll check which file restricts the license of this package later.
Best regards,
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA
(2012/08/20 8:15), Luiz Fernando Ranghetti wrote:
Hi,
It seems that the edict license is unaceptable for openSUSE, so it was dropped from openSUSE Factory (12.2 and beyond) 7 weeks ago. And all packages which requires/build require it oo.
https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/125777
The packages envolved are (in parenthesys the delete request #):
edict (125777) edict-emacs (125778) gjiten (126216) javadict (126217) xjdic (126288) xyaku (126289)
All of them are in state broken in M17N repository (because of the _link it has with factory - except edict and edict-emacs that I remove this _link and it builds ok)
I'm asking what sohuld we do in M17N? Drop these packages too? Try to build without edict? Move it to Non OSS or maybe Packman? Ask for help on what to do in similar cases on another list? (opensuse-factory/-packaging)
I don't use this packages, I note it while doing some cleanups on M17N (basically desabling sled repositories with unresolvable state)
Regards,
Luiz
Hi,
The SUSE Legal Team could help, as they point this package to exclusion on openSUSE Factory. I've CC'ed Cian Farrell, which can help use.
Regards,
Luiz
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+owner@opensuse.org
On 21/08/12 19:42, Fuminobu TAKEYAMA wrote:
Hi all,
I found that 1. Licenses of some small dictionary files in edict are unclear 2. KANJIDIC's license is CC Attribution-ShareAlike V3.0 with special condition
For 1., I think we should just remove such dictionaries. Correct - if the license is unclear and/or upstream doesn't respond (perhaps the project no longer exists or is dormant) then (in the absence of a statement from the author) we should remove such content from the package.
2. is troublesome. Mile Fabian once got special permission to distribute KANJIDIC that includes "SKIP field"; the copyright of that field is hold by Jack Halpern. The current license of this package come from this special permission. # The email he sent to Jack is found in jack-halpern-copyright-mbox.
The author originally requires royalty for commercial product: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/kanjidic_doc.html#IREF14
This dictionary is needed by gjiten at least.
I guess only a few people uses these packages. I'll ask Japanese community, including other distributions guys, how they think. # Debian and Ubuntu still have kanjidic packages. Fedora does not.
Yes, thanks. That would be a good way to progress. If there is a particular dictionary which is necessary and for which the licenses are not entirely clear, I can contact the legal representatives of the company distributing the dictionary to try to obtain permission to redistribute. It would also be interesting to find out whether the debian community was able to secure redistribution permission for such dictionaries - and if so, under what terms.
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA
(2012/08/21 5:32), Luiz Fernando Ranghetti wrote:
2012/8/20 Fuminobu TAKEYAMA <ftake@geeko.jp>:
Hello,
Sorry, I didn't noticed that.
I'm also not a user of this package but as far as I know, the most part of the edict package is distributed under the Creative Commons License: http://www.edrdg.org/edrdg/licence.html
I'll check which file restricts the license of this package later.
Best regards,
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA
(2012/08/20 8:15), Luiz Fernando Ranghetti wrote:
Hi,
It seems that the edict license is unaceptable for openSUSE, so it was dropped from openSUSE Factory (12.2 and beyond) 7 weeks ago. And all packages which requires/build require it oo.
https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/125777
The packages envolved are (in parenthesys the delete request #):
edict (125777) edict-emacs (125778) gjiten (126216) javadict (126217) xjdic (126288) xyaku (126289)
All of them are in state broken in M17N repository (because of the _link it has with factory - except edict and edict-emacs that I remove this _link and it builds ok)
I'm asking what sohuld we do in M17N? Drop these packages too? Try to build without edict? Move it to Non OSS or maybe Packman? Ask for help on what to do in similar cases on another list? (opensuse-factory/-packaging)
I don't use this packages, I note it while doing some cleanups on M17N (basically desabling sled repositories with unresolvable state)
Regards,
Luiz
Hi,
The SUSE Legal Team could help, as they point this package to exclusion on openSUSE Factory. I've CC'ed Cian Farrell, which can help use.
Regards,
Luiz
-- Ciaran Farrell, Attorney SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, DE GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+owner@opensuse.org
I looked into Debian's package. First, Debian does not ship the minor dictionaries whose licenses are unclear. Then for KANJIDIC, Debian developers removes the "P" fields, which hold SKIP data, from the file of KANJIDIC and they distribute their modified one. If we don't consider why Mike try to keep the SKIP data, we should adopt Debian's approach basically. But my concern is "Z?P" fields, such as "ZPP", are not removed from the file in Debian's package. To me, I'm not sure but it looks like a part of SKIP data. Fuminobu TAKEYAMA (2012/08/22 2:47), Ciaran Farrell wrote:
On 21/08/12 19:42, Fuminobu TAKEYAMA wrote:
Hi all,
I found that 1. Licenses of some small dictionary files in edict are unclear 2. KANJIDIC's license is CC Attribution-ShareAlike V3.0 with special condition
For 1., I think we should just remove such dictionaries. Correct - if the license is unclear and/or upstream doesn't respond (perhaps the project no longer exists or is dormant) then (in the absence of a statement from the author) we should remove such content from the package.
2. is troublesome. Mile Fabian once got special permission to distribute KANJIDIC that includes "SKIP field"; the copyright of that field is hold by Jack Halpern. The current license of this package come from this special permission. # The email he sent to Jack is found in jack-halpern-copyright-mbox.
The author originally requires royalty for commercial product: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/kanjidic_doc.html#IREF14
This dictionary is needed by gjiten at least.
I guess only a few people uses these packages. I'll ask Japanese community, including other distributions guys, how they think. # Debian and Ubuntu still have kanjidic packages. Fedora does not.
Yes, thanks. That would be a good way to progress. If there is a particular dictionary which is necessary and for which the licenses are not entirely clear, I can contact the legal representatives of the company distributing the dictionary to try to obtain permission to redistribute. It would also be interesting to find out whether the debian community was able to secure redistribution permission for such dictionaries - and if so, under what terms.
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA
(2012/08/21 5:32), Luiz Fernando Ranghetti wrote:
2012/8/20 Fuminobu TAKEYAMA <ftake@geeko.jp>:
Hello,
Sorry, I didn't noticed that.
I'm also not a user of this package but as far as I know, the most part of the edict package is distributed under the Creative Commons License: http://www.edrdg.org/edrdg/licence.html
I'll check which file restricts the license of this package later.
Best regards,
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA
(2012/08/20 8:15), Luiz Fernando Ranghetti wrote:
Hi,
It seems that the edict license is unaceptable for openSUSE, so it was dropped from openSUSE Factory (12.2 and beyond) 7 weeks ago. And all packages which requires/build require it oo.
https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/125777
The packages envolved are (in parenthesys the delete request #):
edict (125777) edict-emacs (125778) gjiten (126216) javadict (126217) xjdic (126288) xyaku (126289)
All of them are in state broken in M17N repository (because of the _link it has with factory - except edict and edict-emacs that I remove this _link and it builds ok)
I'm asking what sohuld we do in M17N? Drop these packages too? Try to build without edict? Move it to Non OSS or maybe Packman? Ask for help on what to do in similar cases on another list? (opensuse-factory/-packaging)
I don't use this packages, I note it while doing some cleanups on M17N (basically desabling sled repositories with unresolvable state)
Regards,
Luiz
Hi,
The SUSE Legal Team could help, as they point this package to exclusion on openSUSE Factory. I've CC'ed Cian Farrell, which can help use.
Regards,
Luiz
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+owner@opensuse.org
On 22/08/12 16:07, Fuminobu TAKEYAMA wrote:
I looked into Debian's package.
First, Debian does not ship the minor dictionaries whose licenses are unclear.
Then for KANJIDIC, Debian developers removes the "P" fields, which hold SKIP data, from the file of KANJIDIC and they distribute their modified one.
If we don't consider why Mike try to keep the SKIP data, we should adopt Debian's approach basically.
Agreed
But my concern is "Z?P" fields, such as "ZPP", are not removed from the file in Debian's package. To me, I'm not sure but it looks like a part of SKIP data.
Is it possible to tell what the benefits of such fields are - i.e. is it possible to remove those fields and still build a useful package? Ciaran
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA
(2012/08/22 2:47), Ciaran Farrell wrote:
On 21/08/12 19:42, Fuminobu TAKEYAMA wrote:
Hi all,
I found that 1. Licenses of some small dictionary files in edict are unclear 2. KANJIDIC's license is CC Attribution-ShareAlike V3.0 with special condition
For 1., I think we should just remove such dictionaries. Correct - if the license is unclear and/or upstream doesn't respond (perhaps the project no longer exists or is dormant) then (in the absence of a statement from the author) we should remove such content from the package.
2. is troublesome. Mile Fabian once got special permission to distribute KANJIDIC that includes "SKIP field"; the copyright of that field is hold by Jack Halpern. The current license of this package come from this special permission. # The email he sent to Jack is found in jack-halpern-copyright-mbox.
The author originally requires royalty for commercial product: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/kanjidic_doc.html#IREF14
This dictionary is needed by gjiten at least.
I guess only a few people uses these packages. I'll ask Japanese community, including other distributions guys, how they think. # Debian and Ubuntu still have kanjidic packages. Fedora does not.
Yes, thanks. That would be a good way to progress. If there is a particular dictionary which is necessary and for which the licenses are not entirely clear, I can contact the legal representatives of the company distributing the dictionary to try to obtain permission to redistribute. It would also be interesting to find out whether the debian community was able to secure redistribution permission for such dictionaries - and if so, under what terms.
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA
(2012/08/21 5:32), Luiz Fernando Ranghetti wrote:
2012/8/20 Fuminobu TAKEYAMA <ftake@geeko.jp>:
Hello,
Sorry, I didn't noticed that.
I'm also not a user of this package but as far as I know, the most part of the edict package is distributed under the Creative Commons License: http://www.edrdg.org/edrdg/licence.html
I'll check which file restricts the license of this package later.
Best regards,
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA
(2012/08/20 8:15), Luiz Fernando Ranghetti wrote:
Hi,
It seems that the edict license is unaceptable for openSUSE, so it was dropped from openSUSE Factory (12.2 and beyond) 7 weeks ago. And all packages which requires/build require it oo.
https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/125777
The packages envolved are (in parenthesys the delete request #):
edict (125777) edict-emacs (125778) gjiten (126216) javadict (126217) xjdic (126288) xyaku (126289)
All of them are in state broken in M17N repository (because of the _link it has with factory - except edict and edict-emacs that I remove this _link and it builds ok)
I'm asking what sohuld we do in M17N? Drop these packages too? Try to build without edict? Move it to Non OSS or maybe Packman? Ask for help on what to do in similar cases on another list? (opensuse-factory/-packaging)
I don't use this packages, I note it while doing some cleanups on M17N (basically desabling sled repositories with unresolvable state)
Regards,
Luiz
Hi,
The SUSE Legal Team could help, as they point this package to exclusion on openSUSE Factory. I've CC'ed Cian Farrell, which can help use.
Regards,
Luiz
-- Ciaran Farrell, Attorney SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, DE GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+owner@opensuse.org
We discussed also at opensuse-ja ML.
Is it possible to tell what the benefits of such fields are - i.e. is it possible to remove those fields and still build a useful package?
I think the dictionary is still useful even if the problematic data are removed. We can remove the data but can we change the license? So we should ask the author of kanjidic (main file, not the skip data) whether or not we can distribute modified data under a pure CC BY-SA (V3.0) without the special condition. http://www.edrdg.org/edrdg/licence.html It will be better if the author publish the modified data under the new license. Fuminobu TAKEYAMA (2012/08/23 18:59), Ciaran Farrell wrote:
On 22/08/12 16:07, Fuminobu TAKEYAMA wrote:
I looked into Debian's package.
First, Debian does not ship the minor dictionaries whose licenses are unclear.
Then for KANJIDIC, Debian developers removes the "P" fields, which hold SKIP data, from the file of KANJIDIC and they distribute their modified one.
If we don't consider why Mike try to keep the SKIP data, we should adopt Debian's approach basically.
Agreed
But my concern is "Z?P" fields, such as "ZPP", are not removed from the file in Debian's package. To me, I'm not sure but it looks like a part of SKIP data.
Is it possible to tell what the benefits of such fields are - i.e. is it possible to remove those fields and still build a useful package?
Ciaran
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA
(2012/08/22 2:47), Ciaran Farrell wrote:
On 21/08/12 19:42, Fuminobu TAKEYAMA wrote:
Hi all,
I found that 1. Licenses of some small dictionary files in edict are unclear 2. KANJIDIC's license is CC Attribution-ShareAlike V3.0 with special condition
For 1., I think we should just remove such dictionaries. Correct - if the license is unclear and/or upstream doesn't respond (perhaps the project no longer exists or is dormant) then (in the absence of a statement from the author) we should remove such content from the package.
2. is troublesome. Mile Fabian once got special permission to distribute KANJIDIC that includes "SKIP field"; the copyright of that field is hold by Jack Halpern. The current license of this package come from this special permission. # The email he sent to Jack is found in jack-halpern-copyright-mbox.
The author originally requires royalty for commercial product: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/kanjidic_doc.html#IREF14
This dictionary is needed by gjiten at least.
I guess only a few people uses these packages. I'll ask Japanese community, including other distributions guys, how they think. # Debian and Ubuntu still have kanjidic packages. Fedora does not.
Yes, thanks. That would be a good way to progress. If there is a particular dictionary which is necessary and for which the licenses are not entirely clear, I can contact the legal representatives of the company distributing the dictionary to try to obtain permission to redistribute. It would also be interesting to find out whether the debian community was able to secure redistribution permission for such dictionaries - and if so, under what terms.
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA
(2012/08/21 5:32), Luiz Fernando Ranghetti wrote:
2012/8/20 Fuminobu TAKEYAMA <ftake@geeko.jp>:
Hello,
Sorry, I didn't noticed that.
I'm also not a user of this package but as far as I know, the most part of the edict package is distributed under the Creative Commons License: http://www.edrdg.org/edrdg/licence.html
I'll check which file restricts the license of this package later.
Best regards,
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA
(2012/08/20 8:15), Luiz Fernando Ranghetti wrote: > > Hi, > > It seems that the edict license is unaceptable for openSUSE, so it was > dropped from openSUSE Factory (12.2 and beyond) 7 weeks ago. And all > packages which requires/build require it oo. > > https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/125777 > > The packages envolved are (in parenthesys the delete request #): > > edict (125777) > edict-emacs (125778) > gjiten (126216) > javadict (126217) > xjdic (126288) > xyaku (126289) > > All of them are in state broken in M17N repository (because of the > _link it has with factory - except edict and edict-emacs that I remove > this _link and it builds ok) > > I'm asking what sohuld we do in M17N? Drop these packages too? Try to > build without edict? Move it to Non OSS or maybe Packman? Ask for help > on what to do in similar cases on another list? > (opensuse-factory/-packaging) > > I don't use this packages, I note it while doing some cleanups on M17N > (basically desabling sled repositories with unresolvable state) > > Regards, > > Luiz >
Hi,
The SUSE Legal Team could help, as they point this package to exclusion on openSUSE Factory. I've CC'ed Cian Farrell, which can help use.
Regards,
Luiz
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+owner@opensuse.org
Ciaran Farrell wrote:
On 21/08/12 19:42, Fuminobu TAKEYAMA wrote:
Mile Fabian once got special permission to distribute KANJIDIC that includes "SKIP field"; the copyright of that field is hold by Jack Halpern. The current license of this package come from this special permission. # The email he sent to Jack is found in jack-halpern-copyright-mbox.
The author originally requires royalty for commercial product: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/kanjidic_doc.html#IREF14
This dictionary is needed by gjiten at least.
I guess only a few people uses these packages. I'll ask Japanese community, including other distributions guys, how they think. # Debian and Ubuntu still have kanjidic packages. Fedora does not.
Yes, thanks. That would be a good way to progress. If there is a particular dictionary which is necessary and for which the licenses are not entirely clear, I can contact the legal representatives of the company distributing the dictionary to try to obtain permission to redistribute. It would also be interesting to find out whether the debian community was able to secure redistribution permission for such dictionaries - and if so, under what terms.
As Fuminobu wrote, KANJIDIC itself is distributed under CC BY-SA 3.0 License. But the license of SKIP codes, which are included in KANJIDIC, is CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 and 'The SKIP codes may not be used in commercial applications without explicit written permission to do so by Jack Halpern.' # http://www.kanji.org/kanji/dictionaries/skip_permission.htm In 2004, when Mike Fabian got the permission, SUSE Linux basically was a commercial distribution and I suppose that's why he had to get special permission in order to include KANJIDIC in SUSE Linux distribution. But for now, openSUSE itself isn't a commercial distribution. So I think there's no problem if we include KANJIDIC (SKIP codes) _just in openSUSE_. Or, is there any guideline which lay it down that software under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license cannot be included in _openSUSE_ distribution? Best, -- _/_/ Satoru Matsumoto - openSUSE Member - Japan _/_/ _/_/ Marketing/Weekly News/openFATE Screening Team _/_/ _/_/ mail: helios_reds_at_gmx.net / irc: HeliosReds _/_/ _/_/ http://blog.zaq.ne.jp/opensuse/ _/_/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-m17n+owner@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
Ciaran Farrell -
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA -
Luiz Fernando Ranghetti -
Satoru Matsumoto