[ubuntu-art] Breathe PPA
a.starr.b at gmail.com
Wed Jul 1 23:45:12 BST 2009
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Kenneth Wimer<kwwii at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 June 2009 22:40:22 Cory K. wrote:
>> Kenneth Wimer wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 30 June 2009 10:31:00 Cory K. wrote:
>> >> Andrew SB wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Cory K.<coryisatm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> So what's your next move? Do you wanna try to go for a 0.44 upload to
>> >>>> REVU or does kwwii wanna take this on? (as we've chatted before about
>> >>>> it. just had to give him the go. GO!) :P
>> >>> Well, there's some work that probably needs to get done before it will
>> >>> get accepted.
>> >>> * License Review:
>> >>> - COPYING (and debian/copyright) claim CC-BY-SA-3.0 while svg
>> >>> metadata says CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0
>> >>> - Which is right?
>> >>> - Are NC license "non-free"?
>> >>> - Jakub Steiner listed in svg metadata, but not AUTHORS (and
>> >>> debian/copyright) - Oxygen team is in AUTHORS but not
>> >>> debian/copyright.
>> >>> I know in Debian, even though they now accept CC-3.0, NC is considered
>> >>> "non-free." I can't seem to find a clear statement on whether it's
>> >>> acceptable in Ubuntu Universe, but my feeling is that it is not.
>> >>> >From the Debian Free Software Guidlines FAQ:
>> >>> (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html)
>> >>> "Q: Can I say "You must not use the program for commercial purposes"?
>> >>> A: This is non-free. We want businesses to be able to use Debian for
>> >>> their computing needs. A business should be able to use any program in
>> >>> Debian without checking its license."
>> >>> Anyone seen a definitive Ubuntu policy statement on this? Again, my
>> >>> inclination is that the license is "non-free." If someone wanted to
>> >>> roll a commercial Ubuntu derivative, in theory they should be able to
>> >>> redistribute anything in Universe with no problem.
>> >> The 1st. CC-BY-SA-3.0 The metadata in the SVGs should be stripped. It's
>> >> a remnant of something that never worked. Oxygen is dual-licensed:
>> >> http://www.oxygen-icons.org/?page_id=4
>> > You need to at least continue the copyright that Jakub expresses for the
>> > purposes he expressed it (ie, don't remove any of the copyright notices
>> > which attribute his work to him).
>> I don't use any direct work from him. Only the idea. We should give him
>> a shout out anyway.
> To be honest, unless you have plans to make big bucks on this stuff I would
> assign copyright as broadly as needed amongst known open source
> advocates/artists. As long as the original material is in line with your
> licensing, why not? (if some part of their work did indeed make it into
>> Any metadata in the SVGs I added because I thought it would be fun to
>> use. Turns out, nobody cared.
> Lol, no doubt. It only adds value as an additional copyright notice for the
> actual author(s). In the end, you can do this via the AUTHORS file as well
> as the COPYRIGHT, etc.
Getting all the licensing / copyright in order can be a bit tedious,
but not having it right is the main reason why packages get rejected
in NEW. Getting everything straightened out for gnome-colors was a
real hassle, as the icons in that set come from a few different
I fixed the metadata in the svg's. As they all use the same template
it was painless. For the record here is the command I ran:
find . -type f -name *.svg | xargs sed -i -e "s/by-nc-sa/by-sa/g"
>> > If there are oxygen icons or parts of oxygen icons
>> > being used (or even if there is a very strong similarity in design or
>> > style) you should include the names of the authors in the AUTHORS file
>> > as
>> > well as attributing the correct licence.
>> > It seems to me, just by reading this and not getting into it very deep
>> > that you do not need to include the oxygen list (and if it turned out
>> > that you did, I am sure I would ask nicely first :p)
>> I think I mention the team. Kenneth, if you could, please look through
>> the packaging branch and see if things fit your idea of how they should
>> be. Credit and what not.
> To be honest, I wouldn't definitely notice, off the bat, if some small part
> is being copied and to be even more honest, I doubt we would raise a fuss in
> any case unless of course you step on the toes of an oxygen core member by
> attributing something he did as your own (so don't even think of trying to
> earn money on it without following the licensing, which is in line in both
> packages. If it came down to a situation in which a breathe icon became
> amazingly famous but was really based on an oxygen icon I am sure we could
> work something out...this isn't about becoming a super-star or something :p
>> >> Jakub's build system was used but there's no "copyright" there I know
>> >> of. I'm just giving attribution/props. If the Oxygen team should be in
>> >> the debian/copyright then go ahead. I'm sure Ken can chime in. In the
>> >> end, no Oxygen will be used. That's the plan. It was/is simply to be
>> >> used as inspiration.
>> > Well, Jakub still has the copyright on the code he wrote for the build
>> > system.
>> Actually he did his in ruby and ours is python. Ours is based on
>> something someone just threw up at some point. I'll look around to see
>> if I can track it down again but our script has come so far Im unsure
>> what's from the original.
> true, so I guess you don't need to mention him...I did not realize that it
> was different :p
More information about the ubuntu-art