[ubuntu-art] Breathe PPA
kwwii at ubuntu.com
Tue Jun 30 23:08:03 BST 2009
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.
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-art