[ubuntu-art] Breathe PPA

Cory K. coryisatm at gmail.com
Tue Jun 30 21:40:22 BST 2009


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.

Any metadata in the SVGs I added because I thought it would be fun to
use. Turns out, nobody cared.

> 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.

>> 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.



More information about the ubuntu-art mailing list