From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Vong Subject: Re: Open Government Data License & CC-BY 4.0 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:41:19 +0800 Message-ID: <877f28hlj4.fsf@gmail.com> References: <1ab4cb95-b135-d017-d5c9-27108059960b@openmailbox.org> <20170425074754.opmnysbbtxmkogxw@abyayala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37190) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d2wyZ-0002qc-FH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 05:41:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d2wyW-0001OE-AB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 05:41:39 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-x242.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c05::242]:35978) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d2wyW-0001Nx-3b for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 05:41:36 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-x242.google.com with SMTP id v1so2623659pgv.3 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 02:41:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Brendan Tildesley's message of "Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:36:56 +1000") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Brendan Tildesley Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Brendan, If I understand correctly, CC-BY 4.0 is a non-copyleft license. Since the license is compatible with CC-BY 4.0, it is also a permissive license. So I think using 'license:non-copyleft' should work. > ng0 =E6=96=BC 2017-04-25 17:47 =E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93: >> >> CC-BY 3.0 is in Guix. Unless something fundamental changed in 4.0, 4.0 >> should be okay to add in the variants which are not CC-BY-NC. >> >> Licenses can be added in guix/licenses.scm > Well the license seems to be compatible with CC-BY 4.0 because it > explicitly states so in clause 4.2. Or is it compatible as a matter of > fact and that clause is simply pointing it out, and so it may also be > compatible with CC-BY 3.0? When we assign a license in a Guix package > definition, my understanding is that this is a statement saying > effectively "If you look in the source tar.gz, you will see that this > package is in fact licensed under ... license, perhaps in the COPYING > file". If I set the license to CC-BY 4.0, would that be claiming the > Taiwanese government has issued the font under that license. Does clause > 4.2 mean "You can redistribute this under CC-BY 4.0 with your name on > it, if you want" or "We grant you this under the CC-BY 4.0". I'm not > even sure if that is a meaningful distinction in copyright law. If the > former is actually correct, does this require me as a Guix dev to add a > COPYING file distributing the font under CC-BY 4.0 under my name or > what? Can I say truthfully that the source .zip file containing the > fonts is under the CC-BY 4.0 ? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEdZDkzSn0Cycogr9IxYq4eRf1Ea4FAlj/GcAACgkQxYq4eRf1 Ea4bwg//UmiUC/yJC5aVo1bRc9aGFNCPLL10H89N3pJZSr7HHf4oQSeeYLAQzpyE iNwGokUk/IUnfBV63Fw3dqQF95Oboea5Uav8MWJYHYaCJ0ovfPYOOLzOW0a0jqqW ByL7vWcsoK0IlYlcBHkcUn2E57jDTxD3naXyx+MlEeQ7bCg1xLsecYtN2KbHULiM cqW8JSfFvnQz0HBvxX51BfoH0WBu28vXLquC24lIxduDsErFdh41prNAPM8w7rOe 73qnsc1w/bUHu0r3UT+vIKT9bxDnxv9M3Po/ipnoQLggGSqfi8oB/U6R+IMpK2p+ 1mCZEJzwAESerUCOeNm67dxC07w3pWz1g4/Aik3iHg2fvdYqDlvNelsOYrJj41Xs EEYDL2yiwyvJ+Hb8g091jVkH++ImRnp02HDXJrB1XVY4L6W7k1FEULEfudyE/mah xEAFzb8+ZoSir8djUXLXP2/A7ZAlXQ6pOGlrInYxH/HwppqHxyKu6S89MiJFfzkQ NOunbdvt7X0Tasew5Bb9giuiAEZCfsPxvYY2wV2YfJx7S3i7C5Lg68jiI2bhItYS oR/L2L8l5jLFlQqTtv2D28WnzRmuUAQ4tzQbuhMbeccxrfW+IOLGGVEIUvMIBdAr PNlha10c3R2Z34A02X4zxEVoF4WM1AfoGlskWqOtEXRTuDVp4tc= =3AkQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--