Re: wsdl test files and licensing

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de> writes:

> the soap-client people have written a test suite shich is obviously
> useful. I would like to merge it into Emacs. This will take time,
> because before this happens it shall use ert for running the
> tests. But that's another story.
>
> As test data, there are several *.wsdl files as well as soap request
> examples (these are *.xml files). All of them are not licensed, except
> Debbugs.wsdl taken from the GNU ELPA debbugs package.

What does "are not licensed" mean?  If it means "there is no license to
distribute them", obviously we cannot distribute them.  That's a
no-brainer.

> Would it be necessary to bring all those files under GPLv3? As said, I
> regard them as test data.

If we distribute them as part of Emacs, the standard threshold is
"copyright assignment to FSF".  The FSF will then generally distribute
under GPLv3 or later, but that may change at some time subject to the
constraints spelled out in the copyright assignment contract.

Outside of a copyright assignment, stuff becomes more complex and
requires separate ok/go-ahead from Richard and/or the FSF copyright
clerk.  Off the cuff I'll be pretty sure that GPLv3 only won't cut it,
something like X11 license (or BSD without advertising clause) might
work, GPLv3+ might barely work.  But it's up to an individual decision
by Richard/copyright clerk whether a particular licensing of
non-assigned software can be accepted into the Emacs distribution.

For test data, it might be possible (if one cannot get the copyright
holders to sign a copyright assignment) to get a long with a copyright
disclaimer where the copyright holder will disclaim all copyright
interest in the respective files.  Again, this needs individual approval
by Richard/clerk.

-- 
David Kastrup