Andrew SB wrote: > 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? >
Let's push the 0.50 release on the 12th. Will give some time for little fixes and to wrap up a few other items. So, artists if you have something cookin' get it to me by the 10th so I have time to up[load and test. @Andrew: You're going to take over the "BreatheMgr" account at GNOME-Look so as to handle the releases there correct? -Cory K. -- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
