This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 3/5] localedata: CLDRv28: update LC_ADDRESS.country_name translations
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>
- Cc: Marko Myllynen <myllynen at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Keld Simonsen <keld at keldix dot com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:24:40 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] localedata: CLDRv28: update LC_ADDRESS.country_name translations
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1454998387-26905-1-git-send-email-vapier at gentoo dot org> <20160209061848 dot GE7732 at vapier dot lan> <20160209072042 dot GG7732 at vapier dot lan> <56B99471 dot 4000709 at redhat dot com> <20160209080011 dot GJ7732 at vapier dot lan> <56BA53A8 dot 2070704 at redhat dot com> <20160209214819 dot GR7732 at vapier dot lan> <56BB8DD6 dot 9020808 at redhat dot com> <20160210201256 dot GA7732 at vapier dot lan> <56BC0DC4 dot 3070404 at redhat dot com> <56BC534B dot 5040306 at redhat dot com> <56BCA2E9 dot 6010407 at redhat dot com> <56BCC81E dot 4070804 at redhat dot com>
On 02/11/2016 12:42 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 02/11/2016 04:04 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> Does this position not make it clear?
> It deals with a different question. The FSF apparently disclaims
> copyright ownership of the glibc locale data. It does not actually say
> whether aggregated locale data can be the subject of a sui generis
> database right (a question which the FSF would not have any say in
> anyway), or if the FSF claims such rights on the glibc locale data
> (probably not, but the message and permission notice do not say so
Conceptually to me it seems no different than making changes to
individual files, not recording copyright, and not asking the
contributor to disclaim copyright to the FSF. Though I admit I
see where you are coming from and there might be a risk there.
Particularly because we have entire copies of the Unicode data
files in our source tree.
It would seem to me that we would have to include an attribution
section in the manual and list the Unicode license (since CLDR
is covered under it).
I suggest we continue the work and I will ask FSF legal to comment
on the issue of needing an attribution for the use of the Unicode
data files. I am still of the opinion that the original statement
from the FSF is enough guidance, to continue the work Mike is doing,
but it doesn't hurt to get clarification.