This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 11 Feb 2016 10:04, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 02/11/2016 04:24 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > On 02/11/2016 05:27 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > >> On 02/10/2016 03:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> then it would be obvious what version of CLDR was used to update the > >>> locale. the downside is that the file isn't 100% sourced from CLDR, > >>> so it seems like clobbering all the fields is wrong ? > >> > >> Per FSF statement [1] the locale files are not copyrightable so IMO > >> attribution matters only so much as we care to thank the previous > >> authors for their work. Such previous authors already have attribution > >> in the Changelog, and IMO need not have any more attribution in the > >> source file, just like we don't use "Contributed by" anymore. > > > > unicode.org claims copyright on CLDR data: > > > > <http://unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/unicode-license.txt> > > > > The terms do not appear to be too onerous, but I would recommend to > > obtain FSF (and internal) sign-off before incorporating data directly > > from CLDR into glibc. > > Does this position not make it clear? > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-locales/2013-q1/msg00048.html > > For the Unicode 8.0 update and this CLDR update we should be > stripping all conflicting copyright notices and adding: > > % This file is part of the GNU C Library and contains locale data. > % The Free Software Foundation does not claim any copyright interest > % in the locale data contained in this file. The foregoing does not > % affect the license of the GNU C Library as a whole. It does not > % exempt you from the conditions of the license if your use would > % otherwise be governed by that license. > > Per the FSF request? > > I don't see that we need to keep making legal requests unless the > FSF changes their position. makes sense to me i'm hacking on a linter of sorts for the locale data files to check for common issues. i can add this logic to that. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |