[ubuntu-art] Breathe PPA

[Cory K.]

Andrew SB wrote:
> 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?
>   

Let's push the 0.50 release on the 12th. Will give some time for little
fixes and to wrap up a few other items.

So, artists if you have something cookin' get it to me by the 10th so I
have time to up[load and test.

@Andrew: You're going to take over the "BreatheMgr" account at
GNOME-Look so as to handle the releases there correct?

-Cory K.