[ubuntu-art] Breathe PPA

[Andrew SB]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Andrew SB<a.starr.b at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> yours)
>>
>>> 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
> sources.
>
> 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
>>
>

Just to wrap up this discussion, as I said above I removed all the
references to the license being NC from the svg meta-data. That was
really the only blocker to having the archive-admins accept the
package that I could see. I also just pushed a few other little fixes,
including adding the Oxygen team to debian/copyright, cause really why
not?

Anyways, the packaging seems about ready for release. Should we wait
for 0.50? What's the time frame for that?

 - Andrew