License for the dictionaries

[Arran Cudbard-Bell]

On 22 Nov 2011, at 09:58, Alan DeKok wrote:

> John Dennis wrote:
>> I sent this question to our non-lawyer license guru, Tom Callaway who
>> watches over licensing issues for Fedora. This is Tom's response.
> 
>  Thanks.
> 
>  My $0.02:  The files are copyrightable, as they contain more than just
> a collection of facts.  Many of the dictionary ATTRIBUTE and VALUE names
> are *not* mandated by any specification, and are instead chosen by us.
> Similarly, the comments in the files are not mandated by spec, as are
> the additional flags on attributes.
> 
>  The reason this came up is I had off-list conversations with people
> who copied the files, and then said "there was no copyright", and "we
> didn't know they came from freeradius".
> 
>  It took me all of 3 minutes to find implementation-specific text in
> the files which *I* wrote.  So... adding copyright and license stops
> idiots like that.
> 
>  I'm OK with the CC-BY-SA license.  It seems to fit the approach of the
> rest of the server.
> 
>  Alan DeKok.
> -
> List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
> 

I'm by no means a licensing expert, but isn't some of the content in the Vendor dictionaries derived from copyrighted works such as manuals and whitepapers? Could there be issues there?

-Arran

Arran Cudbard-Bell
a.cudbardb at freeradius.org

Betelwiki, Betelwiki, Betelwiki.... http://wiki.freeradius.org/ !