Hello, As a clarification: The license tag in the openstreetmap dgml file does indeed refer to the remote png files (that are not packaged).
The whole Marble source code is licensed under the LGPL 2+ - this also includes the dgml files. This is not only indicated by the copyright statement inside all cpp and header files in the Marble code but also by the LICENSE.txt file. Still I share the doubts regarding whether the *.dgml files' content is "creative" enough to be copyrightable. I'm very thankful for the countless hours that packagers spend to package Marble - many of them do that in their valuable sparetime. And you are of course free to modify and ship our software under the terms of the LGPL 2+ license. BUT Given that hundreds of other spare-time contributors have put their heart and several dozen man-years into Marble development ... wouldn't it be appropriate to ask us for clarification _before_ you start to butcher and cripple our software severely? Doesn't our Marble community of more than 500 contributors deserve that kind of respect for their valuable work? Don't the OpenStreetMap contributors who like to see their data being spread with proper recognition deserve that tiny additional effort? Even more so since we have spent lots of hours in the past to do our best to ensure that Marble can be fully shipped under the DFSG terms to our Debian users? The packager who is responsible for this obviously spent 2 minutes of work on modifying the Marble package for no better reasons than unclarity. It would have cost the _same_ amount of time to send an email asking for an educated clarification to marble-de...@kde.org. And you would have received a reply within minutes. Compare this additional effort to the years that Debian did ship these files already. Even three full months after making this change the Marble team has not been approached about this yet. And I just came across this bugreport via a regular "Marble KDE" Google search that I do daily. > any user looking for a workaround can just download this file Users? Wow, assuming users to have that kind of awareness and technical expertise is just plain unrealistic. Please get these files included and repackaged as quick as possible. I think our developers and users deserve it. Thank you and have a nice marbleous day, Torsten PS: We have been allowed to display the weather temparture and precipitation (and temp-jul) data with the request to properly credit the authors. The 2.0 version reference was indeed a copy and paste error. You can consider the associated map theme to be licensed under the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0.
