[1]: https://www.maxmind.com/en/geolite2/eula
* Patrick Matthäi:
[1]: https://www.maxmind.com/en/geolite2/eula| 3. Destructions of GeoLite2 Database and GeoLite2 Data. From time to
| time, MaxMind will release an updated version of the GeoLite2
| Databases, and you agree to promptly use the updated version of the
| GeoLite2 Databases. You shall cease use of and destroy (i) any old
| versions of the Services within thirty (30) days following the
| release of the updated GeoLite2 Databases; and (ii) all Services
| immediately upon termination of the license under this
| Agreement. Upon request, you shall provide MaxMind with written
| confirmation of such destruction.
That looks thoroughly non-free to me, and it is also highly
impractical. It appears to be the intent that this clause overrides
the permissions normally afforded by the CC-BY-SA license.
On Sat, Jan 04, 2020 at 12:44:49AM +0100, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
So if we are not allowed to distribute it anymore we have got theThat would be (very) misleading and I'm not sure if it would be in the service of our users. The data gets stale really quick --I think it was something like 2-5% loss per month? My opinion is that shipping no data
following options:
1) we keep the the current free database in our repository, which is
free and works. We dont care about the precision after X years (not our
fault)
is better than shipping garbage data...
2) we drop the database package. Also if it is something like contrib,I don't agree with that; the libraries are free-libre, the file format
but if there is no free working alternative, shouldnt we (as in Debian
as open source community) then also remove all libraries and
implementations using GeoIP from Maxmind from our repositories?
is open and freely documented (CC-BY-SA 3.0), and there are both readers
and writers for those formats in the archive. There are even
free-as-in-beer databases available in the wild, although that wouldn't
even be a requirement IMO. There is nothing in the DFSG that says that software is free-libre only if it operates on publicly available
free-libre data.
3) We/others/I and others start a fork: I would welcome volunters toI wouldn't mind that option of course, but I have my doubts it'd be successful... That's essentially MaxMind's entire business that you'd be trying to replicate, after all :)
start a fork to maintain the database, so that it is not useless in a
few years, but this is also one of my last options. I would like to have
a solution with Maxmind together.
How about option (4):
- We drop geoip-database, assuming that we determine we can't legally
distribute it anymore, or ship it in non-free if we determine we can.
[I haven't read the terms yet]
- We let users generate and/or ship their own MMDBs. For example,
organizations may have internal data in their databases of sufficient
accuracy that they can use to generate MMDBs and use them locally.
- Optionally, users can also use geoipupdate, which is already in DebianAgain to contrib
(and in contrib). They can sign up on maxmind.com, for either a free
or paid account, configure geoiupdate with their username & license
key and get fresh and up-to-date databases. They can continue to use
all MMDB/GeoIP2 software as they previously did.
Definitely not as easy to set up or practical as the previous situation,
but still better than options 1-3 I think :)
So @Maxmind:My intepretation of the change is very different than yours, but I'll
<snip>
avoid speaking for MaxMind folks here :)
Regards,
Faidon
So if we are not allowed to distribute it anymore we have got the
following options:
1) we keep the the current free database in our repository, which is
free and works. We dont care about the precision after X years (not our fault)
2) we drop the database package. Also if it is something like contrib,
but if there is no free working alternative, shouldnt we (as in Debian
as open source community) then also remove all libraries and
implementations using GeoIP from Maxmind from our repositories?
3) We/others/I and others start a fork: I would welcome volunters to
start a fork to maintain the database, so that it is not useless in a
few years, but this is also one of my last options. I would like to have
a solution with Maxmind together.
So @Maxmind:
<snip>
Am 04.01.2020 um 01:53 schrieb Faidon Liambotis:
the libraries are free-libre, the file format
is open and freely documented (CC-BY-SA 3.0), and there are both readers and writers for those formats in the archive. There are even free-as-in-beer databases available in the wild, although that wouldn't even be a requirement IMO. There is nothing in the DFSG that says that software is free-libre only if it operates on publicly available
free-libre data.
We have got many similar examples in another category: games
Old games like Quake, Red Alert, Roaler Coaster Tycoon etc etc, the game
code now itself is free: sometimes reverse engin., new code or open
sourced by the publisher itself. But often the required game data
(images, videos, etc) are not distributable and required from the
original cd-rom.
So the game code itself is free, but we have to put it in contrib,
because it is only useable with non-free data.
The library is licensed under LGPL
and the database is under the Creative Commons license.
The reason is that the one-way compatibility mechanism of CC-by-sa v4.0
is not exceptionally clear, and, without that compatibility, the
CC-by-sa v4.0 license itself has a number of controversial clauses
(non-free, in my own personal opinion).
On 15 Jun 2020, at 21:14, Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 21:24:45 +0200 Roberto wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:04:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
The reason is that the one-way compatibility mechanism of CC-by-sa v4.0
is not exceptionally clear, and, without that compatibility, the
CC-by-sa v4.0 license itself has a number of controversial clauses
(non-free, in my own personal opinion).
CC-BY 4.0 (without SA) may be better than CC-BY-SA in that case,
according to the FSF it's compatible and accepted as a free license (for
content which is not a program).
Actually, although the FSF [claims] that CC-by v4.0 is compatible with
the GNU GPL, it does not explain how the restrictions found in CC-by
v4.0 can be reconciled with the GNU GPL.
[claims]: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby>
I asked the FSF to publish a reasoned analysis on this.
I did so back in 2015, but nothing has been disclosed yet (as far as I
know). :-(
I am personally *not* convinced that CC-by v4.0 is GPL-compatible.
Please note that the CC-by v4.0 has no explicit compatibility clause (contrary to CC-by-sa v4.0, which has a one-way compatibility
mechanism)...
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:04:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
The reason is that the one-way compatibility mechanism of CC-by-sa v4.0
is not exceptionally clear, and, without that compatibility, the
CC-by-sa v4.0 license itself has a number of controversial clauses (non-free, in my own personal opinion).
CC-BY 4.0 (without SA) may be better than CC-BY-SA in that case,
according to the FSF it's compatible and accepted as a free license (for content which is not a program).
Thank you for your feedback.
As you will have noticed, I am not an expert on licenses and have picked
CC BY-SA 4.0 because I believe Maxmind’s database was licensed under this before.
We can of course change the license and I am happy to take your
suggestions. What I would like the license to be is the following:
* it should be free for anyone to use but not possible to sell the
database
* it would be nice to encourage users to give back to the project and help them to help us to improve the data wherever possible
I cannot come up with anything else this license should or could cover.
Best,
-Michael
On 15 Jun 2020, at 21:14, Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org>wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 21:24:45 +0200 Roberto wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:04:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
The reason is that the one-way compatibility mechanism of CC-by-sa v4.0 >>> is not exceptionally clear, and, without that compatibility, the
CC-by-sa v4.0 license itself has a number of controversial clauses
(non-free, in my own personal opinion).
CC-BY 4.0 (without SA) may be better than CC-BY-SA in that case,
according to the FSF it's compatible and accepted as a free license (for >> content which is not a program).
Actually, although the FSF [claims] that CC-by v4.0 is compatible with
the GNU GPL, it does not explain how the restrictions found in CC-by
v4.0 can be reconciled with the GNU GPL.
[claims]: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby>
I asked the FSF to publish a reasoned analysis on this.
I did so back in 2015, but nothing has been disclosed yet (as far as I know). :-(
I am personally *not* convinced that CC-by v4.0 is GPL-compatible.
Please note that the CC-by v4.0 has no explicit compatibility clause (contrary to CC-by-sa v4.0, which has a one-way compatibility
mechanism)...
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
On 16 Jun 2020, at 00:58, Mihai Moldovan <ionic@ionic.de> wrote:
* On 6/15/20 10:51 PM, Michael Tremer wrote:
As you will have noticed, I am not an expert on licenses and have picked CC BY-SA 4.0 because I believe Maxmind’s database was licensed under this before.
I'm assuming that your DB will not contain any content from Maxmind's DB? Hence,
you just strove to stay compatible with the original content?
We can of course change the license and I am happy to take your suggestions. What I would like the license to be is the following:
* it should be free for anyone to use but not possible to sell the database
That directly violates DFSG 6 ("No discrimination against fields of endeavor, like commercial use.")
I understand your general intention, but it's a misguided one. It would essentially make the database unredistributable if charging a fee for the (re-)distribution, i.e., it couldn't be part of Debian media (CD-ROMs and the like) for which a fee is charged (even if that fee only covers media and distribution costs).
In Debian context, such a license would be considered non-free.
* it would be nice to encourage users to give back to the project and help them to help us to improve the data wherever possible
Such encouragements should be part of, e.g., a README file, but not part of a license. *Forcing* users to contribute back would likewise make a license non-free for Debian usage (since that would fail the Desert Island test).
Fortunately, you said "encourage", so that would be optional and hence good. I'm
just pointing out that even ideas with good intentions (naturally improving a database is a plus for any user) can lead to software or data becoming non-free.
Licenses and their implications can easily become a double-edged sword. :)
Mihai
I consider myself a great advocate for free software. Almost everything I do, and certain all I can, is free software - available for anyone to use.
We have spent a lot of time on this and we do not want another Maxmind. I am not trying to make money with this project, but nobody else should be making that money either.
Since this is only a license - and people seem to rather ignore than follow these - there is no guarantee for us that someone does things that we do not want them to do. But in the end I have to protect my project and the other people working on this so that we can continue doing this.
I do not want this to be non-free, but I hope my point makes at least some sense.
* it would be nice to encourage users to give back to the project and help >> them to help us to improve the data wherever possible
Such encouragements should be part of, e.g., a README file, but not part of a license. *Forcing* users to contribute back would likewise make a license non-free for Debian usage (since that would fail the Desert Island test).
Sorry for my noob question, but doesn’t the GPL “force” people to give back?
Fortunately, you said "encourage", so that would be optional and hence good. I'm just pointing out that even ideas with good intentions (naturally improving a database is a plus for any user) can lead to software or data becoming non-free.
A license is just letters on some paper. I had my own software copied too often by too many people with bad intentions and I could not do anything about it without throwing more money and time down the drain.
So, I guess we can conclude that the CC BY-SA 4.0 option is definitely something that we would drop. Simply for that reason that it is too complicated.
I always assumed that any of the GPL licenses won’t be applicable to data (and only code). Can maybe brings some light into the dark for me?
Sorry for my noob question, but doesn’t the GPL “force” people to give back?
This project however was a lot more work than we anticipated and there are someDo you have the means and motivation to pay court costs and lawyer fees to sue a
more challenges to come. We generate no income from working on this at all, but of
course need to fill our own fridges with food every once in a while. I am not telling you anything new here and I do not want to moan. But in the past, we have
fought legal battles (and were involuntarily dragged into them) where people took
IPFire, rebranded it slightly and sold it as their own. That fight consumed a lot
of resources on our side without any gain for the project. It brings down morale
and brings many other problems with it, too.
So the intention is to do better here.
On 17 Jun 2020, at 04:34, J.B. Nicholson <jbn@forestfield.org> wrote:
Michael Tremer wrote:
This project however was a lot more work than we anticipated and there are someDo you have the means and motivation to pay court costs and lawyer fees to sue a copyright infringer?
more challenges to come. We generate no income from working on this at all, but of
course need to fill our own fridges with food every once in a while. I am not
telling you anything new here and I do not want to moan. But in the past, we have
fought legal battles (and were involuntarily dragged into them) where people took
IPFire, rebranded it slightly and sold it as their own. That fight consumed a lot
of resources on our side without any gain for the project. It brings down morale
and brings many other problems with it, too.
So the intention is to do better here.
On 16 Jun 2020, at 15:01, Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:28:05AM +0100, Michael Tremer wrote:
(...)
I consider myself a great advocate for free software. Almost everything I do,
and certain all I can, is free software - available for anyone to use.
Let me nitpick on that Free software also requires the ability to modify and distribute the modified work…
We have spent a lot of time on this and we do not want another Maxmind. I am >> not trying to make money with this project, but nobody else should be making >> that money either.
Being "gratis" is stricly not a requirement for FLOSS*, but being "libre" is, and the 4 software freedoms encourage to allow usage for "any purpose", including
commercial use. So, IMHO, this two paragraphs are somehow conflating gratis with libre. (Additionally CC-BY-SA does not have a commercial-usage restriction,
as some said already in this thread)
* for example, there are some projects (in the Android App world) that sells the app in the offical store but have the sourcecode available to compile yourself on a public repository)
Since this is only a license - and people seem to rather ignore than follow >> these - there is no guarantee for us that someone does things that we do not >> want them to do. But in the end I have to protect my project and the other >> people working on this so that we can continue doing this.
I do not want this to be non-free, but I hope my point makes at least some >> sense.
if you want it to be (DSFG)-free, please choose one of the approved licenses. But I fear that your expectations are different: A (DFSG-)free license must not limit commercial use in any way, for example…
Sorry for my noob question, but doesn’t the GPL “force” people to give back?* it would be nice to encourage users to give back to the project and help >>>> them to help us to improve the data wherever possible
Such encouragements should be part of, e.g., a README file, but not part of >>> a license. *Forcing* users to contribute back would likewise make a license >>> non-free for Debian usage (since that would fail the Desert Island test). >>
No, it does not. We had some discussion about a different license that crossed
this topic lately: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2020/04/msg00016.html
TL;DR: You only need to offer your modifications to _your_ recipients of the work, not to whom you received it from.
Fortunately, you said "encourage", so that would be optional and hence
good. I'm just pointing out that even ideas with good intentions (naturally >>> improving a database is a plus for any user) can lead to software or data >>> becoming non-free.
A license is just letters on some paper. I had my own software copied too
often by too many people with bad intentions and I could not do anything
about it without throwing more money and time down the drain.
There is this famous "use if for good not evil"-Json-license … disaster? …
A true free software must even allow usage for evil purposes, not even touching
the question who defines "evil"?
So, I guess we can conclude that the CC BY-SA 4.0 option is definitely
something that we would drop. Simply for that reason that it is too
complicated.
Chooose any license you find suitable. Best from https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
Some people will disagree on some license being listed here*, but this is kind of
official position of the project. (there are sometime more factors than a license to consider something free software) The only strong advice I would like to give is "Don't invent your own licence."
*For instance, I'm not in the CC-4.0-is-non-free camp, but I would love to learn about the objections…
I always assumed that any of the GPL licenses won’t be applicable to data >> (and only code). Can maybe brings some light into the dark for me?
Many people believe that can be applied to data as well, incl. the FSF [1]. /me has e.g released CAD models [2] using the GPL, but I explicitly
clarified that I consider this covered, no idea if that would be actual needed, though. IANAL.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware
[2] e.g https://github.com/coldtobi/tobis_cl260_modifications/blob/master/Z-Axis/README.md
--
tobi
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 285 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 71:18:52 |
Calls: | 6,488 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,275,626 |