On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Kenneth Wimer<[email protected]> wrote: > 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.<[email protected]> 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.
Getting all the licensing / copyright in order can be a bit tedious, but not having it right is the main reason why packages get rejected in NEW. Getting everything straightened out for gnome-colors was a real hassle, as the icons in that set come from a few different sources. I fixed the metadata in the svg's. As they all use the same template it was painless. For the record here is the command I ran: find . -type f -name *.svg | xargs sed -i -e "s/by-nc-sa/by-sa/g" > >> > 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 different :p > -- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
