[Debichem-devel] pymatgen-test-files_2022.0.17-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Andrius Merkys]

Hi,

On 2022-02-12 17:50, Drew Parsons wrote:
> On 2022-02-12 12:00, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
>> please remove all cif-files that are copyright by Springer.
>> Please also check the other files whether they are distributable.
> 
> Thanks for the scrutiny, Thorsten.
> 
> What's our position on attribution licences?
> 
> test_files/C26H16BeN2O2S2.cif and Cod_2100513.cif,  nosymm.cif declares
> 
> # The file may be used within the scientific community so long as
> # proper attribution is given to the journal article from which the
> # data were obtained.
> 
> The reference to scientific community seems a null op.  What if a
> merchant bank wants to use the file, and is happy to provide the
> requested attribution?
> 
> That aside, does the request (or demand, really) for attribution make it
> non-free?  Attribution clauses are a bit of a grey area.  The BSD
> licence is an attribution licence really.  Any licence, for that matter,
> if you think about it that way ("this work is derived from ...").

At least Cod_2100513.cif comes from the Crystallography Open Database
(disclaimer: I am on its advisory board) which places all its contents
into public domain. As the CIF file in question is published in IUCr
journals, their licenses should as well be consulted.

> As far as Springer goes, not sure why they're laying claim to the cif
> structures in their materials database (e.g. PF_sd_1002871.cif =
> https://materials.springer.com/isp/crystallographic/docs/sd_1002871). 
> The source journal is Inorganic Chemistry, ACS Publications, not
> Springer.  Looks like a dodgy copyright to me.

Seconded. In principle, CIF files document scientific facts which are
not copyrightable. But databases might perform curation or changes of
any kind and then lay their claim.

I suggest discussing Springer's files with pymatgen developers. Maybe
they will also be willing to replace problematic test files with
something else.

Best,
Andrius