-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ISO Schematron iso-schematron.rng license issue #65
Comments
This probably is the best place for you to report an issue with the license text. I'm not involved with ISO, but I think there's zero chance that ISO will revise the version before last of the standard to update the license text. You might, however, influence the license wording in the next version, if the WG so decides. https://github.com/Schematron/schema/blob/655a641bb8fe21ec4fa7b1a82498c43bc70a3bf0/schematron.rnc is a copy of the 2020 version of the schema, with a correction added by the ISO editor. The Schematron organisation hosts unofficial copies of the Schematron schemas so that people don't have to copy-and-paste from their PDFs of the Schematron standard (from an idea by @susi-wunsch at Schematron/schematron#15 (comment)). After all, permission is granted to "distribute free of charge". You could generate a schema by using a utility such as The comment at https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/154#note_1273444092 includes "while the license does not require inclusion of the license in copies", but the license includes "The following permission notice and disclaimer shall be included in all copies of this XML schema ("the Schema"), and derivations of the Schema:" |
There's also utilities -- Oxygen XML Editor has one -- that can generate sample documents from a schema. To make sure that you have all of the elements and attributes, you could generate documents from the schema, then generate a schema from the documents. Generated schemas tend to have loose content models and have lots of CDATA attributes, so they tend to need fix-up to be more useful. |
Thanks for sharing your valuable insights! Really appreciated.
I feared so. ;-)
That's basically lxml's interpretation too - we can provide Re generating the schema-for-schematron: interesting idea. I do have plenty of Oxygen XML experience from times past, mainly working with XSDs. So that might indeed be a way to kickstart an alternative schema. Still, I suppose you'd need to manually fine-tune it and needed access to the standards PDFs for this. Thanks again, |
The license is exactly the same as the standard SGML license as used by
piblic entity sets WITHOUT PROBLEM for 35 years. Are they going to remove
all SGML and XML distros for the same reason?
The problem is not the license, but the ignorance of the original reviewer,
AFAICS. It would better to stop the problem at source.
Regards
Rick
…On Fri, 14 Jul. 2023, 00:42 hjoukl, ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi,
pardon me if this isn't the proper place to report such an issue - what
would be?
The renowned lxml Python XML library uses the "skeleton" schematron
implementation to provide iso schematron support since ~2009.
Lately, Fedora1 and RHEL2 and probably soon SUSE strip lxml's iso
schematron parts due to the license in iso-schematron.rng (
https://github.com/lxml/lxml/blob/4bfab2c821961fb4c5ed8a04e329778c9b09a1df/src/lxml/isoschematron/resources/rng/iso-schematron.rng)
"being unclear and potentially non-Free" 3
<https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/154>.
Note: This is lxml's vendored copy of the formerly available RelaxNG
schema for schematron, added to lxml years ago. Looks like it's still
available in its compact form in this repo linked on schematron.com:
https://github.com/Schematron/schema/blob/655a641bb8fe21ec4fa7b1a82498c43bc70a3bf0/schematron.rnc,
with the same license header.
See the lxml mailing list (
***@***.***/message/XZZAANG3Y2EMTVTQ66AH7WKB7N4VILUP/)
and issue tracker (https://bugs.launchpad.net/lxml/+bug/2024343) reports
on this situation.
lxml tries to mitigate that by optionally running without support for
RelaxNG-validation of the schematron schema in use.
I.e. you can now remove the iso-schematron.rng file with the "offending"
license and still run lxml.isoschematron functionality, albeit without
validating the schematron schema itself.
Is there any chance to get this dependency properly re-licensed (or the
license text reworded unambiguously), i.e. with a license acceptable for
Fedora, RHEL as linux distributors who ship lxml in their distribution?
I wouldn't even know who'd be in the position to to this, if possible. The
original author? The ISO org?
Could one reimplement the schematron schema from scratch (if one had
access to the standards documents, which aren't publicly available any
more, without buying from ISO)? Or maybe there's an alternative open source
schema-for-schematron out there somewhere, e.g. an XSD?
Any insights appreciated.
Best regards,
Holger
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#65>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AF65KKJ54I64XQDVCUAAEJTXQACMRANCNFSM6AAAAAA2JBYHXA>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
The original author of the license was a lawyer called Charles Goldfarb, in
around 1985.
Rick
…On Fri, 14 Jul. 2023, 00:42 hjoukl, ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi,
pardon me if this isn't the proper place to report such an issue - what
would be?
The renowned lxml Python XML library uses the "skeleton" schematron
implementation to provide iso schematron support since ~2009.
Lately, Fedora1 and RHEL2 and probably soon SUSE strip lxml's iso
schematron parts due to the license in iso-schematron.rng (
https://github.com/lxml/lxml/blob/4bfab2c821961fb4c5ed8a04e329778c9b09a1df/src/lxml/isoschematron/resources/rng/iso-schematron.rng)
"being unclear and potentially non-Free" 3
<https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/154>.
Note: This is lxml's vendored copy of the formerly available RelaxNG
schema for schematron, added to lxml years ago. Looks like it's still
available in its compact form in this repo linked on schematron.com:
https://github.com/Schematron/schema/blob/655a641bb8fe21ec4fa7b1a82498c43bc70a3bf0/schematron.rnc,
with the same license header.
See the lxml mailing list (
***@***.***/message/XZZAANG3Y2EMTVTQ66AH7WKB7N4VILUP/)
and issue tracker (https://bugs.launchpad.net/lxml/+bug/2024343) reports
on this situation.
lxml tries to mitigate that by optionally running without support for
RelaxNG-validation of the schematron schema in use.
I.e. you can now remove the iso-schematron.rng file with the "offending"
license and still run lxml.isoschematron functionality, albeit without
validating the schematron schema itself.
Is there any chance to get this dependency properly re-licensed (or the
license text reworded unambiguously), i.e. with a license acceptable for
Fedora, RHEL as linux distributors who ship lxml in their distribution?
I wouldn't even know who'd be in the position to to this, if possible. The
original author? The ISO org?
Could one reimplement the schematron schema from scratch (if one had
access to the standards documents, which aren't publicly available any
more, without buying from ISO)? Or maybe there's an alternative open source
schema-for-schematron out there somewhere, e.g. an XSD?
Any insights appreciated.
Best regards,
Holger
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#65>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AF65KKJ54I64XQDVCUAAEJTXQACMRANCNFSM6AAAAAA2JBYHXA>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
Thanks for chiming in @rjelliffe!
Probably. I'm not a lawyer though, and common sense seems not be generally applicable when it comes to legal. I take it by original reviewer you mean the Fedora reviewer (lawyer?) who qualified the license as being ambiguous ("susceptible of at least four interpretations") and failing Fedora license criteria?
I just noticed that the "(c) International Organization for Standardization 2005. Might that be the standard SGML license you're referring to, probably with updated copyright year? I take it at some point in time lxml upgraded So that might mean that the original license was changed for the 2016 schematron version (by ISO?). But I'm very much out of my depth wrt licensing here. Best regards, |
Just to follow up, I believe the only change was to the date. |
Quoting the different license texts here: The originally lxml-included
Whereas the current version from the 2016 schematron standard ((b) introduced in commit lxml/lxml@92901bd) has this:
Which is very much the same as the license header in https://github.com/Schematron/schema/blob/655a641bb8fe21ec4fa7b1a82498c43bc70a3bf0/schematron.rnc (c):
So indeed (b) and (c) have the same license text, apart from the copyright year. But the |
I can see that the 2016 text differs from what appeared in the first edition of the ISO standard. IIRC, I took over as project editor in 2016 when the text was at FDIS (Final Draft International Standard) stage and the earliest draft I worked on already had this text in place. |
Hi,
pardon me if this isn't the proper place to report such an issue - what would be?
The renowned lxml Python XML library uses the "skeleton" schematron implementation to provide iso schematron support since ~2009.
Lately, Fedora1 and RHEL2 and probably soon SUSE strip lxml's iso schematron parts due to the license in
iso-schematron.rng
(https://github.com/lxml/lxml/blob/4bfab2c821961fb4c5ed8a04e329778c9b09a1df/src/lxml/isoschematron/resources/rng/iso-schematron.rng) "being unclear and potentially non-Free"3.Note: This is lxml's vendored copy of the formerly available RelaxNG schema for schematron, added to lxml years ago. Looks like it's still available in its compact form in this repo linked on schematron.com: https://github.com/Schematron/schema/blob/655a641bb8fe21ec4fa7b1a82498c43bc70a3bf0/schematron.rnc, with the same license header.
See the lxml mailing list (https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/XZZAANG3Y2EMTVTQ66AH7WKB7N4VILUP/) and issue tracker (https://bugs.launchpad.net/lxml/+bug/2024343) reports on this situation.
lxml tries to mitigate that by optionally running without support for RelaxNG-validation of the schematron schema in use.
I.e. you can now remove the
iso-schematron.rng
file with the "offending" license and still run lxml.isoschematron functionality, albeit without validating the schematron schema itself.Is there any chance to get this dependency properly re-licensed (or the license text reworded unambiguously), i.e. with a license acceptable for Fedora, RHEL as linux distributors who ship lxml in their distribution?
I wouldn't even know who'd be in the position to to this, if possible. The original author? The ISO org?
Could one reimplement the schematron schema from scratch (if one had access to the standards documents, which aren't publicly available any more, without buying from ISO)? Or maybe there's an alternative open source schema-for-schematron out there somewhere, e.g. an XSD?
Any insights appreciated.
Best regards,
Holger
EDIT: Correct formatting to properly show footnotes with links.
Footnotes
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-lxml/c/9d95f5a04edc386313fa854541971b3af07bcae1 ↩
https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/python3.11-lxml/-/commit/7f6d5f61df3d053b7cc392f03b12f059fb97a4a3 ↩
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/154 ↩
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: