On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Andrew SB<[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >
Just to wrap up this discussion, as I said above I removed all the references to the license being NC from the svg meta-data. That was really the only blocker to having the archive-admins accept the package that I could see. I also just pushed a few other little fixes, including adding the Oxygen team to debian/copyright, cause really why not? Anyways, the packaging seems about ready for release. Should we wait for 0.50? What's the time frame for that? - Andrew -- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
