感謝 🙏
https://codeberg.org/calckey/calckey/commit/b5c01e9f61ebdea93640c60762d6be2057b23ad0

@namekuji I think this way is better than our dogmatic opinion. If we clear the license terms, we can report abuse more certainly, and protect correct users from indesiable criticism.

@namekuji
> you only package example.yml and let users copy it to default.yml (via apt dialog or manual edit I believe?)
Yes, but I want to notice license of my copy of `.config/example.yml`. If "I don't see any issues because it's the same as what README.md instructs. I presume you're going to make your project open-sourced too." is correct, the copy of `.config/example.yml` seems to be under the AGPLv3 with editable exceptions. I hope to clear this terms by copyright holders.

@namekuji Actually, I want to distribute `.config/example.yml` as a `.config/default.yml` and not serve it own, then I must choose license for it and notice. In the case, README.md tell nothing about and I cannot choose AGPL or permit copying since I'm not a copyright holder.

Backgrounds are written on https://codeberg.org/calckey/calckey/issues/10470.

@namekuji In Japan, any fair-uses are not acceptable on the legal...

@namekuji
P.S.
"In generic" ~ "at U.S. or Japan", the legal raw at them introduce the interpretation. I do not know about other countries. The FAQ of AGPL suppose you are at U.S.

@namekuji Therefore, since a copy of `.config/example.yml` is not a computing result of Calckey and a (manually) modified thing of a fragment of Calckey in generic, it is under the Calckey license (AGPLv3).

@namekuji If database values are same as Calckey schema completely, we should open it by AGPL in generic; then it's done by https://codeberg.org/calckey/calckey. However, modifications by computing are not licensed under AGPL.

More details:
* https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF
* https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOutput
* https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL

@namekuji I'm also not legal expert, so the below is my thinking:

In generic, compute results are not licensed i.e. under the Public domain if some special license terms for it are not available. The bound of "compute results" are ambiguous, but in generic, database values are compute results since the values are in-directly of manual operations, and edit files are not compute results and works by human i.e. under the original license.

@namekuji @dvd Good points.

> Given that the configuration file default.yml is explicitly excluded from the repository by .gitignore, I think default.yml is not a part of "the program" defined over the git repo.
I agree. `.config/default.yml` is not always a part of "The Program".

However, if we copy `.config/example.yml` (it is included on "The Program") as a `.config/default.yml`, modify and use it, I think it is a part of "The Program".

@dvd (But clearly,
> modifying configuration would not be considered as modification
is true since if it was not acceptable, almost admins of AGPL / SSPL software have been violating its license... 😅)

@dvd Interesting, thanks! However, for me, AGPLv3 told configurations are parts of "The Program". Since AGPLv3 is ambiguous certainly, I think it has worth to clear terms i.e. choose another license.

@dev というのは一応 issue description にはちょろっと書いときましたが、Misskey 側に断りを入れる or 一から書き直すは必要かなとは思います

ライセンスちゃんと運用しないくらいなら、ライセンス明示しないで、各国のデフォルトの法解釈に任せた方がまだマシという感じ

しかし、世の中 copyright が不明瞭な Apache licensed code が出回ってたりしてめちゃくちゃだよな。あれは一体 contribution の権利はどこに委譲されるんだ...

なので創作性とか必要ないんだよね。単に民法上係争に発展した時に、その拠り所となるだけ

ついでに、日本の場合は、OSS ライセンスは著作物保護のものではなく、著作権法とは無関係。単なる契約書の一種。どっちかというと利用許諾より使用許諾に近いという扱いらしい。米国とかだとまた違ってくるが、日本の場合は一般許諾に関する著作権の扱いがないので