Re: Problems with edict package license

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 <[email protected]>:
>>>>> 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: [email protected]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]