localedata (non-)copyright policy from FSF

localedata (non-)copyright policy from FSF

[Roland McGrath]

I got this from <license-internal@fsf.org> under
	Subject: [gnu.org #804286] GLIBC Locales Files 

I've refilled the paragraphs to be readable.
My response is below the next divider line.

=====

Several free software projects have written to us recently about licensing
issues regarding locales files in GLIBC. Currently, many of these files
contain brief, contradictory, confusing and occasionally non-free licensing
statements.

While the Free Software Foundation requires assignment on copyrightable
contributions to GLIBC, we have never sought or received assignment from
contributors on GLIBC locales files. This is because we had previously
determined that such files were not subject to copyright protection.

Our counsel at the Software Freedom Law Center has also reviewed the
situation, and determined that these files are not the sort of work that
falls under copyright protection.

Given the problems involved in leaving these licensing statements in the
files, as well as our longtime understanding that such files are not
copyrightable, we want to undertake a project to remove these licensing
statements from all GLIBC locales files. Given the time and effort put into
creating these files, we wanted to give locales file creators a chance to
give feedback before implementing this change. Debian has already
undertaken a project to contact these creators to get them to update the
licensing, and has had some success
<http://www.helgefjell.de/debianitem.php?name=bug555168&language=en>. This
bug explains a bit more background on the situation
<http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=555168> as well. Any help
you could provide in tracking down current contact info for the
contributors on those files would be greatly appreciated.

Once we have the contact info, we are going to set about contacting the
contributors to let them know that we want to update the licensing of these
files to the following:

  "This file is a part of GLIBC 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
GLIBC as a whole. It does not exempt you from the conditions of the license
if your use would otherwise be governed by that license."

While we work on that process, if any new locales files are created, please
make sure to use this updated permission. Thank you so much for all the
work you do, and please let me know if you have any questions, or if you
have information that would be helpful in this process.

-- 
Sincerely,

Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
Copyright & Licensing Associate
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110, USA
Phone +1-617-542-5942 
Fax +1-617-542-2652

=====

In the current source tree, only four of the 300ish localedata files
contain any formal copyright notice (i.e. contain the word
"copyright" at all).  Three of those four all use the same license
text (a simple X/BSD sort), and the fourth says only, "Distribution
and use is free, also for commercial purposes."  Two other files
say, "This file is under the GNU General Public License." but those
have no actual copyright notices.  Many others say something short
like: "Distribution and use is free, also for commercial purposes."

I don't know where your information "many of these files contain
brief, contradictory, confusing and occasionally non-free licensing
statements" came from.  It does not comport with the reality I see
today.

>   "This file is a part of GLIBC 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 GLIBC as a whole. It does not exempt you from the conditions of the
> license if your use would otherwise be governed by that license."

No formal text we use says "GLIBC".  It all says, "the GNU C Library".
If we were to add boilerplate text to the files, it would be in keeping
with the standards for such text elsewhere in our sources, and look like:

% 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.

(The % is the comment character in that source file format.)

You can peruse the current localedata source files at:
  http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=tree;f=localedata/locales;hb=HEAD


Thanks,
Roland

Re: localedata (non-)copyright policy from FSF

[Keld Simonsen]

I have  copyrights on many of these locales, and I will contact a lawyer
to see that my copyrights are respected.

I think your way of trying to  resolve this issue is not adequate.
I have relesed my locales under GPL v2.
I am willing to proceed with updating the texts with a revised 
copyright clause.

I am aware of a number of other contributers, whuch would not see mildly
on the infringement of ther copyrights.


Best regards
Keld Simonsen

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 01:57:01PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I got this from <license-internal@fsf.org> under
> 	Subject: [gnu.org #804286] GLIBC Locales Files 
> 
> I've refilled the paragraphs to be readable.
> My response is below the next divider line.
> 
> =====
> 
> Several free software projects have written to us recently about licensing
> issues regarding locales files in GLIBC. Currently, many of these files
> contain brief, contradictory, confusing and occasionally non-free licensing
> statements.
> 
> While the Free Software Foundation requires assignment on copyrightable
> contributions to GLIBC, we have never sought or received assignment from
> contributors on GLIBC locales files. This is because we had previously
> determined that such files were not subject to copyright protection.
> 
> Our counsel at the Software Freedom Law Center has also reviewed the
> situation, and determined that these files are not the sort of work that
> falls under copyright protection.
> 
> Given the problems involved in leaving these licensing statements in the
> files, as well as our longtime understanding that such files are not
> copyrightable, we want to undertake a project to remove these licensing
> statements from all GLIBC locales files. Given the time and effort put into
> creating these files, we wanted to give locales file creators a chance to
> give feedback before implementing this change. Debian has already
> undertaken a project to contact these creators to get them to update the
> licensing, and has had some success
> <http://www.helgefjell.de/debianitem.php?name=bug555168&language=en>. This
> bug explains a bit more background on the situation
> <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=555168> as well. Any help
> you could provide in tracking down current contact info for the
> contributors on those files would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Once we have the contact info, we are going to set about contacting the
> contributors to let them know that we want to update the licensing of these
> files to the following:
> 
>   "This file is a part of GLIBC 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
> GLIBC as a whole. It does not exempt you from the conditions of the license
> if your use would otherwise be governed by that license."
> 
> While we work on that process, if any new locales files are created, please
> make sure to use this updated permission. Thank you so much for all the
> work you do, and please let me know if you have any questions, or if you
> have information that would be helpful in this process.
> 
> -- 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
> Copyright & Licensing Associate
> Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
> Boston, MA 02110, USA
> Phone +1-617-542-5942 
> Fax +1-617-542-2652
> 
> =====
> 
> In the current source tree, only four of the 300ish localedata files
> contain any formal copyright notice (i.e. contain the word
> "copyright" at all).  Three of those four all use the same license
> text (a simple X/BSD sort), and the fourth says only, "Distribution
> and use is free, also for commercial purposes."  Two other files
> say, "This file is under the GNU General Public License." but those
> have no actual copyright notices.  Many others say something short
> like: "Distribution and use is free, also for commercial purposes."
> 
> I don't know where your information "many of these files contain
> brief, contradictory, confusing and occasionally non-free licensing
> statements" came from.  It does not comport with the reality I see
> today.
> 
> >   "This file is a part of GLIBC 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 GLIBC as a whole. It does not exempt you from the conditions of the
> > license if your use would otherwise be governed by that license."
> 
> No formal text we use says "GLIBC".  It all says, "the GNU C Library".
> If we were to add boilerplate text to the files, it would be in keeping
> with the standards for such text elsewhere in our sources, and look like:
> 
> % 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.
> 
> (The % is the comment character in that source file format.)
> 
> You can peruse the current localedata source files at:
>   http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=tree;f=localedata/locales;hb=HEAD
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Roland

Re: localedata (non-)copyright policy from FSF

[Keld Simonsen]

I am afraid that this policy will backfire on FSF and
our locale activities. If FSF would remove the GNU v2
copyrights on these locales, other organisation with more lawyers
and deeper pockets may take over the copyrights, and bar
the locales to be used in glibc. It is quite questionable
that the proposed FSF position will hold in court.

Why risk this? It is a much better and proven way forward to
apply the right licenses to the material.

Best regards
Keld Simonsen

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:38:14AM +0200, Keld Simonsen wrote:
> I have  copyrights on many of these locales, and I will contact a lawyer
> to see that my copyrights are respected.
> 
> I think your way of trying to  resolve this issue is not adequate.
> I have relesed my locales under GPL v2.
> I am willing to proceed with updating the texts with a revised 
> copyright clause.
> 
> I am aware of a number of other contributers, whuch would not see mildly
> on the infringement of ther copyrights.
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Keld Simonsen
> 
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 01:57:01PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I got this from <license-internal@fsf.org> under
> > 	Subject: [gnu.org #804286] GLIBC Locales Files 
> > 
> > I've refilled the paragraphs to be readable.
> > My response is below the next divider line.
> > 
> > =====
> > 
> > Several free software projects have written to us recently about licensing
> > issues regarding locales files in GLIBC. Currently, many of these files
> > contain brief, contradictory, confusing and occasionally non-free licensing
> > statements.
> > 
> > While the Free Software Foundation requires assignment on copyrightable
> > contributions to GLIBC, we have never sought or received assignment from
> > contributors on GLIBC locales files. This is because we had previously
> > determined that such files were not subject to copyright protection.
> > 
> > Our counsel at the Software Freedom Law Center has also reviewed the
> > situation, and determined that these files are not the sort of work that
> > falls under copyright protection.
> > 
> > Given the problems involved in leaving these licensing statements in the
> > files, as well as our longtime understanding that such files are not
> > copyrightable, we want to undertake a project to remove these licensing
> > statements from all GLIBC locales files. Given the time and effort put into
> > creating these files, we wanted to give locales file creators a chance to
> > give feedback before implementing this change. Debian has already
> > undertaken a project to contact these creators to get them to update the
> > licensing, and has had some success
> > <http://www.helgefjell.de/debianitem.php?name=bug555168&language=en>. This
> > bug explains a bit more background on the situation
> > <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=555168> as well. Any help
> > you could provide in tracking down current contact info for the
> > contributors on those files would be greatly appreciated.
> > 
> > Once we have the contact info, we are going to set about contacting the
> > contributors to let them know that we want to update the licensing of these
> > files to the following:
> > 
> >   "This file is a part of GLIBC 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
> > GLIBC as a whole. It does not exempt you from the conditions of the license
> > if your use would otherwise be governed by that license."
> > 
> > While we work on that process, if any new locales files are created, please
> > make sure to use this updated permission. Thank you so much for all the
> > work you do, and please let me know if you have any questions, or if you
> > have information that would be helpful in this process.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
> > Copyright & Licensing Associate
> > Free Software Foundation
> > 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
> > Boston, MA 02110, USA
> > Phone +1-617-542-5942 
> > Fax +1-617-542-2652
> > 
> > =====
> > 
> > In the current source tree, only four of the 300ish localedata files
> > contain any formal copyright notice (i.e. contain the word
> > "copyright" at all).  Three of those four all use the same license
> > text (a simple X/BSD sort), and the fourth says only, "Distribution
> > and use is free, also for commercial purposes."  Two other files
> > say, "This file is under the GNU General Public License." but those
> > have no actual copyright notices.  Many others say something short
> > like: "Distribution and use is free, also for commercial purposes."
> > 
> > I don't know where your information "many of these files contain
> > brief, contradictory, confusing and occasionally non-free licensing
> > statements" came from.  It does not comport with the reality I see
> > today.
> > 
> > >   "This file is a part of GLIBC 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 GLIBC as a whole. It does not exempt you from the conditions of the
> > > license if your use would otherwise be governed by that license."
> > 
> > No formal text we use says "GLIBC".  It all says, "the GNU C Library".
> > If we were to add boilerplate text to the files, it would be in keeping
> > with the standards for such text elsewhere in our sources, and look like:
> > 
> > % 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.
> > 
> > (The % is the comment character in that source file format.)
> > 
> > You can peruse the current localedata source files at:
> >   http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=tree;f=localedata/locales;hb=HEAD
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Roland

Re: localedata (non-)copyright policy from FSF

[Chris Leonard]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote:
> I got this from <license-internal@fsf.org> under
>         Subject: [gnu.org #804286] GLIBC Locales Files

>
> I don't know where your information "many of these files contain
> brief, contradictory, confusing and occasionally non-free licensing
> statements" came from.  It does not comport with the reality I see
> today.

See this ticket (and discussion)

 localedata licencing issues
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11213

See also:
Debian Bug report logs - #555168
Many locales files do not permit modification
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=555168


>>   "This file is a part of GLIBC 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 GLIBC as a whole. It does not exempt you from the conditions of the
>> license if your use would otherwise be governed by that license."
>
> No formal text we use says "GLIBC".  It all says, "the GNU C Library".
> If we were to add boilerplate text to the files, it would be in keeping
> with the standards for such text elsewhere in our sources, and look like:

That is a fair point, "GNU C Library" is more descriptive than  "GLIBC".

> % 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.
>

I believe this is part of a concerted effort by FSF to obtain feedback
from locale authors on the proposed change.

You will note that no changes have been made, no patches posted.  The
current state of glibc license/copyright text is a mess and a cause of
concern for downstreams (e.g. Debian, SugarLabs).

The reasons for the current state of affairs are manifold:

1) FSF has not required copyright assignments from locale authors (or
from contributors of corrections to locales).

2) It appears that there has been an absence of
harmonization/standardization with respect to the copyright/licensing
statements in locale files over time.

3) Numerous locales were apparently developed using previous locales
as templates, leading to the propagation of inadequate or truncated
copyright/license statements.

4) It can be argued that the nature of the information contained in
locale files (day names, month names, etc.)   falls into a grey zone
between obviously copyrightable "creative" contributions (like source
code) and large compilations of public domain information (e.g.
telephone directories) that may also enjoy copyright protection.  This
ambiguity is most likely the reason that copyright assignments have
not traditionally been required.

The question is what can be done to improve the current situation?
The FSF proposed language is one approach to address the current
situation.  It would be very desirable if the discussion could be
focused on improving the FSF proposed approach or suggesting an
alternative approach that also addresses the important issues.  Merely
rejecting the suggested language will not move this issue closer to a
resolution.

It would be very unwieldy and possibly un-necessary to require
copyright assignments on all locale submissions and changes.  Arguing
the position that locales consist primarily of widely available public
domain information compiled with de minimus "creative spark" is not a
denigration of the effort put into compiling them, but a strategy to
argue for the freedom to re-purpose such information from any source.
I've worked with others to submit several new locales and I don't
personally feel slighted by language that would allow the information
therein to be used widely without copyright or licensing restrictions.
 That was my intent in developing the locales in the first place.

cjl

Re: localedata (non-)copyright policy from FSF

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 02/20/2013 11:47 PM, Chris Leonard wrote:
> It would be very unwieldy and possibly un-necessary to require
> copyright assignments on all locale submissions and changes.  Arguing
> the position that locales consist primarily of widely available public
> domain information compiled with de minimus "creative spark" is not a
> denigration of the effort put into compiling them, but a strategy to
> argue for the freedom to re-purpose such information from any source.
> I've worked with others to submit several new locales and I don't
> personally feel slighted by language that would allow the information
> therein to be used widely without copyright or licensing restrictions.
> That was my intent in developing the locales in the first place.

Agreed.

What's the next step?

Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: localedata (non-)copyright policy from FSF

[Petr Baudis]

  Hi!

  Note that while I personally (and as IANAL) disagree with Keld about
whether the locales fall under copyright, I can't really imagine not
having his buy-in on anything we do in this area, given the amount of
locales he contributed. We should find some compromise, and I don't
think that this actually requires changing our respective opinions
on whether locales are copyrightable.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:38:14AM +0200, Keld Simonsen wrote:
> I have  copyrights on many of these locales, and I will contact a lawyer
> to see that my copyrights are respected.
> 
> I think your way of trying to  resolve this issue is not adequate.
> I have relesed my locales under GPL v2.
> I am willing to proceed with updating the texts with a revised 
> copyright clause.
> 
> I am aware of a number of other contributers, whuch would not see mildly
> on the infringement of ther copyrights.

  Keld, if I look at the proposed text

% 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.

I don't actually see a contradiction to your stance.

  (i) It does not say "these files do not fall under copyright" or
that "if the files fall under copyright, FSF has the copyright".
The text says that FSF does not claim any copyright interest, i.e.
either (a) there is no copyright or (b) the copyright is not with FSF
(so it's by default with the locale author). The text doesn't seem to
me to even imply there is no copyright, just that it's not FSF's (which
is good to note as FSF holds copyright on a large portion of glibc).

  (ii) It says "if copyright applies, the glibc licence applies".
Isn't this in accordance with your release of the locales under GPLv2?

  I agree that consulting a lawyer to confirm the text does not go
against your interests is a good idea, but to me as a layman it
doesn't really seem to be bad for you.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 01:39:14AM +0200, Keld Simonsen wrote:
> I am afraid that this policy will backfire on FSF and
> our locale activities. If FSF would remove the GNU v2
> copyrights on these locales, other organisation with more lawyers
> and deeper pockets may take over the copyrights, and bar
> the locales to be used in glibc. It is quite questionable
> that the proposed FSF position will hold in court.

  How could other organisations "take over the copyrights"? Besides,
if the locale authors agree with the proposed text now, that says
essentially "if copyright applies, the glibc licence applies" so at that
point the usage cannot be restricted further than GPLv2 permits.

  Kind regards,

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
	For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear,
	simple, and wrong.  -- H. L. Mencken

Re: localedata (non-)copyright policy from FSF

[Roland McGrath]

Those who actually read the FSF message saw that it said, "we are
going to set about contacting the contributors to let them know that
we want to update the licensing of these files to..."  Note "we want
to", not "we will (no matter what contributors might have to say about
it)", despite the SFLC lawyers' determination that we are legally
entitled to do so.

We could legally have done so without even mentioning it to the
contributors.  But we did not, precisely because we don't want our
past and potential future contributors to be unhappy with us.  We
respect and appreciate the work they have done and want to make sure
that they feel appreciated and respected for their contributions even
while we clarify and simplify the legalities.

Keld's response reads to me as if he got bent out of shape by the
notion, perhaps because he got the impression we were doing something
unilaterally that would detract from the credit he would receive for
his work or from the guarantee of free sharing that he intended.  We
are certainly not doing any such things.  That's why we are discussing
the issue here rather than just acting immediately on the sound legal
advice we have received.  We have both a moral obligation and a strong
desire to give credit for the work done, regardless of whether there
is any legal obligation to do so.

Of course Keld and all other contributors are free to seek their own
legal advice, and wise to do so.  As the letter clearly said, the FSF
is seeking to get in contact with all the contributors of localedata
so the situation can be explained and their concerns addressed (legal
or otherwise).  The end results we intend to achieve are that all the
contributors understand the legal details and feel confident that
their work was, is, and will continue to be greatly appreciated and
that we will always give clear credit for the work done; and that
users and packagers of the data (and their lawyers) are confident that
it has a well-defined and straightforward legal status that does not
limit their freedom to use and share it.


Thanks,
Roland