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 10:24, 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> perhaps on all the files and their collection and additional data, but you can't copyright facts. i'm not committing their files. > 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. covering our bases makes sense, but i don't see a problem here. i'm querying their db for an uncopyrightable fact ("what is the weekend start day -> saturday") and then merging the answer "saturday" into the data files on our side. also, we're already doing this today: localedata/unicode-gen/ parses the unicode.org databases to generate the list of valid characters. -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] |