Re: unsourced pdf in tarball; src available from ftp site;

[Ben Finney]

Paul Wise  writes:

> The course of action you mentioned is perfect otherwise.

Agreed; the main improvement to that course would be to encourage and
work with upstream to include the source document in the source tarball.

Thank you, Paul Elliott, for conscientious attention to the freedom of
package recipients.

-- 
 \  “Better not take a dog on the space shuttle, because if he |
  `\   sticks his head out when you're coming home his face might burn |
_o__)up.” —Jack Handey |
Ben Finney


-- 
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/87y63ypyij@benfinney.id.au

Re: unsourced pdf in tarball; src available from ftp site;

[Paul Wise]

.doc files are usually binary so you won't be able to include it as a
patch. Instead I think you can use dpkg-source v3 and include a second
orig.tar.gz named orig-docsrc.tar.gz (check the dpkg-source manual
page for info on that). You can then use the upstream pristine
tarball.

The course of action you mentioned is perfect otherwise.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
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/AANLkTi=bP=v6i0gfjkhawqvt2coo7aynpru4mlqku...@mail.gmail.com

unsourced pdf in tarball; src available from ftp site;

[Paul Elliott]

I am looking to package the Swiss Ephemeris:
http://www.astro.com/faq/fq_swe_prog_e.htm

Unfortunately, there are unsourced pdfs in the doc directory of the tarball.
doc/swisseph.pdf 
doc/swephprg.pdf
http://www.astro.com/ftp/swisseph/swe_unix_src_1.77.00.tar.gz
However, the source (a .doc file) is on the ftp site in a directory that should 
be covered by the LICENSE file which is also on the ftp site.
http://www.astro.com/ftp/swisseph/doc/swephprg.doc
http://www.astro.com/ftp/swisseph/src/LICENSE

I plan to get an email from the upstream, stating that the .doc files are also
covered by the LICENSE, which I will add to debian copyright.

If I add the .doc file as a patch, can I still use the original pristine source 
tarball?

I plan to create a make file that will rebuild the .pdf from its source using 
openoffice.

I have already requested that the upstream include the source to pdfs in 
future releases.

-- 
Paul Elliott   1(512)837-1096
pelli...@blackpatchpanel.com   PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J
http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/   Austin TX 78758-3117


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Requirements of the Debian Open Use Logo License

[Paul Wise]

AFAIK trademark law doesn't prevent a case like this, no-one can
confuse ice-cream/cookies with computer operating systems :)

As far as copyright goes, earlier discussions found that the swirl was
created using a standard brush in a popular proprietary art program
and could probably be reproduced by accident by anyone using that
program. It is probably very hard to tell if it is a re-implementation
or a copy since the would have just to use the same rotation angle and
would get the same logo.

If you contact the company using this logo, please ask them to sponsor
us some ice-cream for DebConf11 ;)

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
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/AANLkTimC+JASoVH6ag1jBMoMM_-ymKdrkHzZTK=2f...@mail.gmail.com

Requirements of the Debian Open Use Logo License

[Aleksej Serdjukov]

Hello.

(IANAL, IANADD)

I've been pointed to this list on the IRC channel.

I have a question about public display of the swirl (with no "debian") 
in ads, logos etc where it is theoretically possible to put attribution 
or even the license text. In case it is off topic here, it would be 
great if someone can point me to a meaningful past discussion or a 
discussion elsewhere of similar situation with any license. Thanks.



Background:
Recently, some photos have appeared, said to be of logo of a 
confectionary company in Omsk, Russia. The logo contains a swirl which 
looks similar to the Debian's one, if a little distorted (I am asking 
this question even if this particular logo actually was created 
independently).



Pictures:

Here is its entry in (probably a mirror of) the trademark registry: 



  (the official trademark registry UI appears to be at 
)


Comparison: http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/tansi/other/s-3957.jpg

A billboard: http://foto.mail.ru/list/tansi/other/3955.html

Cookies: http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/tansi/other/s-3959.jpg



The license says:
  The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be 
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.



Question: if that swirl is based on the Debian logo, does the company 
have to add such notices somewhere near/in the images (including the 
billboard and the cookie pack)?



Thanks.


--
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/4d904857.1030...@yandex.ru