Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:12:17 -0700
From: Isaac Dunham <ibid.ag@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Call for locales maintainer & contributors

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:43:34PM +0200, Wermut wrote:
> CLDR license (botom of the page): http://unicode.org/copyright.html I
> my eyes this is a BSD like license. If somebody thinks the license is
> not OK, please say so. Copy is attached to this mail.

Comments below.

> ´╗┐UNICODE, INC. LICENSE AGREEMENT - DATA FILES AND SOFTWARE
> 
>     Unicode Data Files include all data files under the directories
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/, http://www.unicode.org/reports/, and
> http://www.unicode.org/cldr/data/. Unicode Data Files do not include PDF
> online code charts under the directory http://www.unicode.org/Public/.
> Software includes any source code published in the Unicode Standard or under
> the directories http://www.unicode.org/Public/,
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/, and http://www.unicode.org/cldr/data/.
> 
>     NOTICE TO USER: Carefully read the following legal agreement. BY
> DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, COPYING OR OTHERWISE USING UNICODE INC.'S DATA FILES
> ("DATA FILES"), AND/OR SOFTWARE ("SOFTWARE"), YOU UNEQUIVOCALLY ACCEPT, AND
> AGREE TO BE BOUND BY, ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF
> YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, COPY, DISTRIBUTE OR USE THE DATA
> FILES OR SOFTWARE.
> 
>     COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION NOTICE
> 
>     Copyright ┬ę 1991-2014 Unicode, Inc. All rights reserved. Distributed under
> the Terms of Use in http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html.
> 
>     Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
> copy of the Unicode data files and any associated documentation (the "Data
> Files") or Unicode software and any associated documentation (the "Software")
> to deal in the Data Files or Software without restriction, including without
> limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or
> sell copies of the Data Files or Software, and to permit persons to whom the
> Data Files or Software are furnished to do so, provided that (a) the above
> copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear with all copies of the
> Data Files or Software, (b) both the above copyright notice(s) and this
> permission notice appear in associated documentation, and (c) there is clear
> notice in each modified Data File or in the Software as well as in the
> documentation associated with the Data File(s) or Software that the data or
> software has been modified.

(a): this makes it in between Sleepycat and BSD (explicit transfer of right
to modify, without mandating transfer of source).
I *think* this shouldn't be a problem, especially considering that Apple and MS
would seem to be fine with it.
(b): could possibly end up being tedious for those who distribute .mo alongside
a static binary, but probably not very bad.

But most importantly:
(c): If I understand correctly, this _MANDATES_ a comment field in the .mo
format (to note copyright, modifications, etc.)

> 
>     THE DATA FILES AND SOFTWARE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY
> KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD
> PARTY RIGHTS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR HOLDERS INCLUDED IN
> THIS NOTICE BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, OR ANY SPECIAL INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL
> DAMAGES, OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR
> PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS
> ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE
> DATA FILES OR SOFTWARE.
> 
>     Except as contained in this notice, the name of a copyright holder shall
> not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other
> dealings in these Data Files or Software without prior written authorization
> of the copyright holder.

Overall:
I have no objection to this, but thought I'd point out the technical
implications that I noticed.

I note the download/copy rules could possibly make mirrors/redistributors
potentially vulnerable to "secondary infringement" (if they copy someone
else's infringing use, they would seem to be liable under the license).
But I am not a lawyer; I would be inclined to suggest asking one before
making use of CLDR data in musl (I'm wondering if this is likely to prove
problematic for those using musl to provide static binaries, and if
redistributors of such binaries are likely to be liable, et cetera.)

The comment field aspect might be important to vendors even if musl does
not use CLDR data, since a vendor might use CLDR or similarly licensed data
as a source for their own locales.

Hope this helps,
Isaac Dunham

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.