Roberto Gordo Saez wrote: > OK, you win, I will not continue with this. Do whatever you want with the > bug. I'm sending this message to debian-legal, in case other people care. > > On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> For all you've said up to this point, the sound files being used could be >> in the public domain; in which case the only controlling copyright is >> that governing the packaging and support files. > > OK, so I take files from the web and put them on packages. They could > be in public domain, so there is no problem unless someone find that > they are not, uh? > > I think it is silly. Copyright does not work this way. Something > should be treated as copyrighted unless clearly stated it is under > public domain. > >> That they are unknown to *you* is not grounds for an RC bug claiming that >> upstream is distributing files illegally. > > And they are unknown to upstream. AFAIK, upstream does never claim > that those files are under artistic license nor under public domain. > It is not me. Why it is this so difficult to understand? > >> If you're going to claim that the license on these sounds is not what >> upstream and the packaging claim it is, the burden of proof lies with >> you. > > Again, upstream does not claim he is copyright holder, and license for > them is not specified. He only claims that he took the files from > other sources. Even if the files are free, credit should be provided, > and the origin clarified. As a positive example, look at this package > (monsterz-data), it is a example of someone who has taken the time to > correctly provided credits and copyright information for the included > wav files: > > /usr/share/doc/monsterz-data/copyright > > To put all copyrights and references in detail for code and data can > be boring, but omitting them makes no favor to free software. Please, > note that including source code for data files is a different issue. > This is about copyright problems on Debian main archive. > > I'm getting tired of all of this. There are still an important number > of packages that carry unlicensed data with them, but I WON'T CONTINUE > reporting bugs. Believe it or not, I have lots of more exciting things > to do than searching for copyright problems and reporting them on my > free time. And instead of people helping me to solve the problems and > make Debian a better product, I got negative responses saying the > problem is myself. > > Defending my position each time takes a lot of time (English is not my > native language and my level of English is rather poor). Things I'm > reporting are obviously not allowed by current Debian guidelines, so > justifying and fighting for them each time is a waste of my time. > > If most people here thinks that we should not care about this, No, you're doing the right thing. Steve is acting odd.
> I would > prefer that guidelines to be updated in consequence, so people who > really care about this kind of copyright issues would know before > choosing to use Debian. So Debian will remain 100% free unless we got > sort of time for the next release, or something taken from the web is > public domain unless someone demonstrate that it is not... > > So do not expect myself to give any more of my time to this. And you > can downgrade the priority again or even close the bug if you want, I > do not mind anymore. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
