Re: Copyright of debian/*
Hi, Le 02/01/2021 à 11:30, Matthew Vernon a écrit : I have noticed some packages using the newer machine-readable copyright format, but not specifying any copyright for debian/* FWIW, I do that in most of the (simple) packages I’m maintaining: I’m fine using the same license as upstream, hence the “Files: *” catch the correct license also for debian/*. The debian/ directory in those packages may have very little copyrightable content anyway (not sure a trivial override in d/rules or data in d/u/metadata would eligible for example). The only creativity is often limited to the package description, that is directly copied (or adapted) from upstream, or a patch cherry-picked (or forwarded) upstream, where I’m not even the copyright owner (upstream is, so again, “Files: *” catches the correct information). Regards David
Re: License of binary packages
Hi, Le 13/11/2014 16:37, Ben Finney a écrit : The file debian/copyright only contains the license of the sources; Not true. That’s a strong affirmation. Policy 4.5 may deserve some clarification, but I wouldn’t be so affirmative (or negative). https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-dpkgcopyright The ‘debian/copyright’ file is installed by each binary package ‘foopackage’ as the ‘/usr/share/doc/foopackage/copyright’ file, and constitutes the copyright information for that binary package. That’s an incomplete description of how dh_installchangelogs works, more information is available in dh_installchangelogs(1) (e.g., you’re free to provides the debian/foopackage.copyright file in the source that will be installed in /usr/share/doc/foopackage/copyright, but you can also override it or not use debhelper at all). Regards David signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Is it allowed to change license statement? [Was: Requesting sponsorship for Catalan Festival support]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, Le 25/05/2014 16:01, Paul Gevers a écrit : I am surprised by the fact that you changed the text of the copyright statement as found in festvox/upc_ca_ona_hts.scm. The policy (4.5) clearly states that’s not allowed: “Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information”. Regards David -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJTgmA5AAoJEAWMHPlE9r08zzIIAJTVQULLDI5QWRIAmke2u4rK zdnzLacKvdQAZMIDbRZmPOo9Al0Dd7qqSPIjIihWwHIVKoXL0Fh77WTdE220sR5Q I8dcaoot5Anp2AsGMpdtJJaP41vyVHZwDhp+1IZ7inq4AUCS1Pp17n/Am7dqx53o 85vjk4WcbFBeUawZxN5ak36wlrflzm5R33eSLx3Uxd7ugtfJmEnmTmYBTKUCbQRE yS2zY0C08TvB6yhOm90NjIfhEUSuCoFE2TeQf9CXPlXGcJyXs2YT40TngqbihXgY 1vat8N2UwC9nw9GzE3GV6ZKn6fTre4MQBTlPtr3M3tgq3+96BDSr+nDv3WRjsxo= =XHmf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5382603a.40...@debian.org
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate
Hi, Le 12/03/2012 09:09, Petter Reinholdtsen a écrit : There are no terms of use that I have found available from the freetranslation site As any other work, unless properly stated compatible with $license, you can only only assume “Copyright $stuff, all right reserved” Regards David signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Ask contributors a permission to relicense
Le 09/01/2012 17:39, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:17:02 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:40:35PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: I think that this is exactly what people opposing to copyright assignment want to avoid: giving permission to re-license under yet unknown terms. I don't think you should make absolute statements for *all* the people opposing copyright assignments, while being yourself only one of them. I didn't intend to make *absolute* statements. I acknowledge that I should have written what *some* people opposing, but unfortunately that some failed to come out of my keyboard... Sorry about that. Anyway, I am under the impression that the number of those some people is significant. [...] I'm under the *impression* that an important amount of people objecting copyright assignments do so to avoid the risk that their contributions get re-licensed under terms that go against their moral beliefs about software freedom. That is why I won't sign a copyright assignment to a for-profit entity. Instead of continuing our discussion based on impressions, we just issued a quick poll [P.-S.]: it confirms that not everyone will agree with a copyright reassignment, but almost all contributors will likely give us a blanket permission to relicense their contributions under any DFSG-free license. Going this way (asking for a blanket permission to re-license under any DFSG-free license) would allow us to work on this issue right now: no need to wait for #238245 to be solved, the discussion about the chosen license can continue while we address the “ask for relicensing permission” task to every current contributor (addressing the current and future side of this issue). Since the “web team” is not a clearly defined entity, I propose, for legal purpose, that the license choice stays ours but we mandate the Debian project leader to publicly announce it once we have decided the accurate license(s) (thus there is another safeguard: the “web team” won't choose a silly license without a formal acknowledgement of the Debian project by the voice of its leader). ——— Subject: Permission to relicense my work on the Debian website I hereby give permission to relicense my work — which consist of edition or translation of portions of text from one human language to another human language, that I have provided to the Debian website or that I will provide in the future — to any DFSG compatible license as chosen by the web team, and announced by the Debian project leader. ——— Once agreed on the wording, I propose to ask every contributors to send us back this relicense permission (and ask them to forward this request to every contributor they commit the work for, as it can be done in translation teams for example). Please note that Andrei found it “a bit harsh” [1] (well, it was about copyright reassignment, since we will only ask for a relicensing permission, maybe his remark won't stand) if we remove commit access to people who won't give their agreement. Hopefully, none of us will really disagree, and we'll only temporarily remove commit access to temporarily unavailable contributors. Anyway, we'll report the result of the relicensing campaign before taking action. 1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2012/01/msg00057.html Regards David P.-S.: we contacted directly the 28 currently most active contributors (we simply drawn this subjective line to people who did at least 50 commits in the past 2 years), and Alexander Reichle-Schmehl forwarded this little poll [2] to people who committed to the publicity repository (since he usually commits in behalf of the publicity and press teams). Six days after the initial call, we already received 14 answers, and thanks to Alexander initiative, 15 more answers five days after his call. Only 20 persons would agree with a copyright reassignment. 28 persons (out of 29) would agree to give a blanket permission to the Debian Web Team to relicense the Website under any DFSG free license (only one person answered “maybe”, so it's not even a strong opposition). 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/2012/01/msg00042.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Are Web-API packages need to be in the 'main' repo ?
Le 04/12/2011 21:02, Clark C. Evans a écrit : I'd say that any dependency on non-free remote service fails Debian's Desert Island Test [1] Nothing prevents people to distribute the code inside a desert Island. The fact that the program would be useless if it depends on a remote service is another matter : are we going to pretend that apt is non-free because we can't use it on a desert Island, since there is no ftp.desertisland.debian.org official mirror available? Regards David signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Le 19/01/2011 22:24, Simon Chopin a écrit : Hi ! Hi all, Kalle CCed, Out of curiosity, I looked at the GNU License list and found the Free Art/Art Libre license [1]. As it turns out, the FSF lawyers have already stated that this license, while free, isn't GPL-compatible. IMHO (very humble, actually), I don't see where this license isn't DFSG-compliant, but I am able to understand the French version, and have to agree with David on the inaccuracy of the translation. Is the text of the license included with Kalle's work the English or the French one ? It links to the English version on this terms: Copyleft : This work is free, you can copy, spread, and modify it under the terms of the Free Art License http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ but according to the License FAQ, it's is under French right and valid in countries that signed the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. I also assume the license forces the www-team to package the licenced stuff into a separate package. Am I correct, and would it be easily doable ? Actually, the website itself is not packaged, so it doesn't need to comply with the DFSG (well, where would the Debian Logo go? ;-), but the question remains to include Kalle's design in a package like installation-guide. Kalle, would it be OK for you to publish your design under a double license (e.g. Free Art License 1.3 and GPL if this is possible)? Regards David -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJNO1j/AAoJELgqIXr9/gnytCgQALOMwju7dbu2O6UX1F2RLo2c prBdWj7KJXVkKn1QhnPuuSaBau0H0upf8VfRjmfksDlnVMJX2R/gPMUb7pieFL2o 2hcgkSw4dDy5iZ9M38t5zOYGfvFgXrnTiyS1WbRMWOUnmX5oO7dTz0Gc9jU54sKU 9gfRwH1oEoy5+5TOdkQ9MU9ftFMyzxAQXG5aa5W5IrLmudjbali4s7+kPthjL+v3 7aRYN3lCmuAZaUHFF2mn93KF4jln8mh4zkijZtXN9V34H6JSrBpjwoE/sLEFwBTz sN4d91+J6bzuKfa+rTcykp8CYfpjN06wbuONuaTI7wR1VZawGtmjfRgZocppCb/0 rvg3ZcmIEJOTQZvN1zItLHQsn7HA54hb68nKzNIOIcdqdqMwGpUCezuOmlJdAM3T yBjiQzcHN15aH6UZdozPsaDdKkLw0OtiZrqb2FO6FTtuvcwVkrSkLr5sKhqte0M3 /mwM1YAay4F0uHim+vS+GHBYgLWluBR9bFQtVVYIvq3oVKJNsluyqeYEgz8zI3oD 3zvH8ekmXSCg6TFZBKt5C6icMgGiXEqJuIl0cCy7DnRPUXhlMUsljKrdOKDD9Mr7 c+NGuF8ItZYPdECzipxCYvm/PsVhdRQTV7LniUKX07DczTMKgfjxldcus4WwdjAs xkf8/XQpueRUReehP8SF =a9BJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d3b5900.6020...@altern.org
Re: Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, Thanks to Simon who asked me about the DFSG compliance of Kalle's design license, and for pointing me to this thread. Le 25/01/2009 07:55, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:41:18 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: May I dig up this almost one year old thread, in order to ask or maybe add some enlightenment about this license, used by Kalle's for his design. As an introduction, I would like to point to the “Licenses” page of the FSF [1] that consider, about “Licenses for Other Types of Works”: “We don't take the position that artistic or entertainment works must be free, but if you want to make one free, we recommend the Free Art License.” This license is about artistic work, is initially written in French, and as such is under French right and valid in countries that signed the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. 1: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html I believe that Francesco's concern about this license to comply with DFSG are mostly due to lack of context and maybe some not best choice of translation. Free Art License 1.3 [...] 2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO PERFORM IN PUBLIC [...] specify to the recipient the names of the author(s) of the originals, including yours if you have modified the work, This might forbid anonymous works or anonymous modifications, which is non-free, IMO. Actually, especially in artistic work, the “name of the author” doesn't need to comply with the civil one (most artists use pseudonym), and I fail to understand the difference with the GPL that ask to mention name of author in the copyright. specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either initial or subsequent). This condition is a little improved with respect to the corresponding one in the Free Art License version 1.2. However, I am still a little concerned that this could mean that, in order to distribute a work under this license, I am required, as long as I go on distributing, to keep updated information on where recipients can access every previous version. Please keep in mind that artistic work may have one original, and that, unlike computer data, copy of the original may differ from it. Please refer to the “Definitions” part of the license about “Originals”, “Initial work” and “Subsequent works”. Anyway, the French sentence that is “indiquer au destinataire où il *pourrait* avoir accès aux originaux” that could better be translated in “specify to the recipient where he *could* access the originals“. In artistic work, original may be broken, lost, or definitely altered by subsequent work for example. It really sounds like if “if possible” is missing (or is implied) in the English translation. What if the original changes, say, URL? Have I to keep track of where it goes? If possible, but it can be the URL where you did find the original, so you “specify to the recipient where to access the originals” at the time you did your subsequent work or your copy. What if the original vanishes? Have I to keep a copy of the original and make it available, in order to be able to distribute a subsequent work? In artistic domain, original *can* vanish, it's implied. 2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY [...] distribute the subsequent work under the same license or any compatible license. This condition appears to be poorly drafted, since it could be interpreted to mandate distribution as a requirement to get the permission to modify. Under this interpretation (which I think was not intended), this license would force modifiers to distribute their modified versions, even when they would rather keep them private. Forced distribution is a non-free restriction, IMO. The original sentence “diffuser cette oeuvre conséquente avec la même licence ou avec toute licence compatible” can be understand as in : *if* you “distribute the subsequent work”, you ave to do it ”under the same license or any compatible license.” The way things are written is really with physical object in mind (not computer data). [...] 5. COMPATIBILITY A license is compatible with the Free Art License provided: it gives the right to copy, distribute, and modify copies of the work including for commercial purposes and without any other restrictions than those required by the respect of the other compatibility criteria; it ensures proper attribution of the work to its authors and access to previous versions of the work when possible; it recognizes the Free Art License as compatible (reciprocity); it requires that changes made to the work be subject to the same license or to a license which also meets these compatibility criteria. I think that, with these compatibility criteria, especially the last two, the GNU GPL (v2 or v3) does not qualify as a compatible license, unfortunately. I am not aware of any other license that meets the DFSG and may be considered a compatible license. According to the
