Version: unspecified (using KDE 4.4.4) OS: Linux Unspecified parts of shared-desktop-ontologies are licensed under the CCPL Attribution 3.0 license, which is not compatible with the LGPL as a dependency, and is arguably non-free. Reproducible: Always Actual Results: KDE is not legally clear, and possibly requires non-free software. Expected Results: KDE should not require possibly non-free software, nor should it be legally questionable to distribute.
See also: OSCAF: https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/oscaf/ticket/78 Gentoo: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=329509
The ontologies are not code as such. So do we really have a problem here? I am no licensing expert and for me the bug description is way too short and unclear. Please state the actual problem and its implications more clearly. "Unspecified parts" - what is that?
Code or not, KDE shouldn't require something non-free. shared-desktop-ontologies does not specify specifically which parts are CCPL-By-3.0, just that some are.
Each file contains its own copyright header. In addition LICENSE.README gives more details on which files are released under which license. Also CC-BY 3 is not "non-free". Furthermore ontologies are not code, the serialization we use is just one way of describing them. As such, (L)GPL does not apply perfectly. That is why we chose CC-BY and BSD for all Nepomuk ontologies. We need a license for an idea or something like that, not for code. The only ontologies that are not licensed in that way are the "base" ontologies provided mostly by the W3C. Not packaging those is impossible. And if you want their license to be changed you should fight it out with the W3C. :P
Section 4c of CC-BY-3 sounds pretty non-free to me. If not packaging them is impossible, I wonder how KDE 4.3 and earlier worked fine.
(In reply to comment #4) > Also CC-BY 3 is not "non-free". > Furthermore ontologies are not code, the serialization we use is just one way > of describing them. As such, (L)GPL does not apply perfectly. That is why we > chose CC-BY and BSD for all Nepomuk ontologies. We need a license for an idea > or something like that, not for code. > The only ontologies that are not licensed in that way are the "base" ontologies > provided mostly by the W3C. *I'm NOT a lawyer* The way I see it ontologies are a really gray area: * Is a different serialization of an ontology a derivative work from the POV of copyright? Does it depend on whether the different serialization was done by hand or by software? * Can a long and unique string such as URI be copyrighted? * Can you infringe on someone's trademark by using their domain etc in URI? * Is ontology a piece of software/lib since it's needed to compile KDE? The closest analogy I can come up with is a formal grammar. > Not packaging those is impossible. And if you want > their license to be changed you should fight it out with the W3C. :P (In reply to comment #5) > Section 4c of CC-BY-3 sounds pretty non-free to me. I don't even understand what section 4c means really :/ Either way Nepomuk ontologies are also BSD-licensed. >If not packaging them is > impossible, I wonder how KDE 4.3 and earlier worked fine. The same way KDE 3.x worked fine. I don't know whether DCMI license is incompatible with lGPL -- to me it resembles BSD. I don't know to what extent DCMI ontologies are used in KDE code right now(supposedly not actively used). In theory, we could add a cmake option to not install DCMI ontologies. We're going to have issues with Nepomuk ontologies referencing DCMI ones though but it can be solved I guess.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Section 4c of CC-BY-3 sounds pretty non-free to me. > > I don't even understand what section 4c means really :/ Either way Nepomuk > ontologies are also BSD-licensed. I can't say I fully understand it either, but it seems to me to be pretty clearly a restriction on what specifically can be done with it. > >If not packaging them is impossible, I wonder how KDE 4.3 and earlier worked > > fine. > > The same way KDE 3.x worked fine. KDE 3 didn't have Nepomuk. KDE 4.3 didn't require shared-desktop-ontologies. > I don't know whether DCMI license is incompatible with lGPL -- to me it > resembles BSD. "DCMI" is just CC-By-3.0, with clause 4c. > I don't know to what extent DCMI ontologies are used in KDE code right > now(supposedly not actively used). In theory, we could add a cmake option to > not install DCMI ontologies. We're going to have issues with Nepomuk ontologies > referencing DCMI ones though but it can be solved I guess. I hope so. Or maybe someone from W3c can be CC'd?
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > Section 4c of CC-BY-3 sounds pretty non-free to me. > > > > I don't even understand what section 4c means really :/ Either way Nepomuk > > ontologies are also BSD-licensed. > > I can't say I fully understand it either, but it seems to me to be pretty > clearly a restriction on what specifically can be done with it. > > > >If not packaging them is impossible, I wonder how KDE 4.3 and earlier worked > > > fine. > > > > The same way KDE 3.x worked fine. > > KDE 3 didn't have Nepomuk. KDE 4.3 didn't require shared-desktop-ontologies. > > > I don't know whether DCMI license is incompatible with lGPL -- to me it > > resembles BSD. > > "DCMI" is just CC-By-3.0, with clause 4c. Did you mean "without"? If so, it's ok to use?
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/oscaf/ticket/78 has been closed upstream. If there are further licensing issues, please report there, too.