ftp.debian.org: RM: imapsync -- RoM; author doesn't want us to distribute his program
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal Hi, Please remove imapsync from unstable. New versions of the program can only be downloaded for money from the upstream author's website and therefore distributing the program for free in Debian is not requested by him anymore. The whole discussion can be found in #609845. Thank you, Gergely On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:33:02 +0100, Gilles LAMIRAL gilles.lami...@laposte.net writes: Hello, - do you want Debian to continue distributing your program (http://packages.debian.org/unstable/mail/imapsync)? No. I thank you very much for all the time and skill you spent packaging imapsync in Debian. -- 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/xg2bbp35qnah.fsf...@lambda.zrh.corp.google.com
BOLA not advisable
Charles Plessy dijo [Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 02:59:04PM +0900]: (...) licenses of the family of the MIT or the BSD require to to reproduce copyright statements on derivatives, and I think that it would cause headaches to many to attempt to seriously comply with them. We are blessed that a lot of data is truly in the U.S. public domain and therefore we can use it completely freely. In case deposition in the public domain is not permitted by the law, I would recommend to use very permissive terms. Some people keep it short, with the WTFPL or the politically correcter BOLA, and some people prefer longer terms to hammer the fact that by giving their data, they can not be responsible for disappointments, errors or misuses made by third parties. The Creative Commons Zero was invented for that case. http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ http://blitiri.com.ar/p/bola/ http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ Hmm, I did not know about BOLA. However, I must recommend everybody _not_ to use it, despite its nice intentions. • The preamble assumes anybody adopting the BOLA (which attempts to do public domain under copyright) is doing so for the reason of not liking thinking about licenses. That is often not true - But yes, this is not yet a real reason. After all, it's just the preamble • I find a contradiction between «this work is to be considered Public Domain» and the first requirement, «Not take credit for it, and give proper recognition to the authors». • What does should mean? Am I required to perform the mentioned tasks? ANDed or ORed together? Yes, they are only if I want to be buena onda - But, does using material under the Buena Onda License Agreement require me (i.e. assume I want) to be Buena Onda? It is a statement of good intentions. But it is not a license. Nor a public domain-like license. -- 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/20110125170531.gf14...@gwolf.org
Re: data copyright or not -- what is Debian's take?
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 at 14:06:49 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: I don't see a need to specify “data”. What's wrong with “work”, the term normally seen in English-language copyright discussions for any information covered by copyright? Since the issue under discussion is things that might or might not be covered by copyright, I wasn't sure whether work as legal jargon implies copyrightable thing (and hence isn't applicable to non-copyrightable things); avoiding the term presumably sidesteps that :-) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person [... and the rest of the usual MIT license text] Where “the usual MIT license text” presumably means the more precise “terms of the Expat license”. Yes, I meant the Expat license (or in fact, what I really meant was insert the terms of your favourite permissive license here, but the Expat license is a good choice). So long as the terms are as I specified above, I think that's a good strategy also, but it is only effective if done by the copyright holders (not unilaterally by a third party). I don't see how anyone who isn't the copyright holder[1] could offer a license for material that might be copyrightable, but yes, it's worth emphasizing that. S [1] by which I really mean: entity who would be the copyright holder if the work was copyrightable, which it might be, or not. Superpositions of states are hard to talk about precisely :-) -- 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/20110125172712.ga31...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk
