for the record Begin forwarded message:
> From: Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> > Date: April 4, 2020 at 23:32:23 GMT+2 > To: Gürkan Myczko <gur...@phys.ethz.ch>, Sean Whitton > <ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org> > Cc: kilob...@angband.pl, Debian Fonts Task Force > <pkg-fonts-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org> > Subject: Re: Comments regarding fonts-amiga_1.02-1_amd64.changes > > Hello Gürkan, > > On Fri 03 Apr 2020 at 01:21PM +02, Gürkan Myczko wrote: > >> Hi Sean, >> >>> I notice that upstream has relicensed from CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 to GPL with >>> the fonts exception, after a previous REJECT from NEW. >> >> Yes that is true. >> >>> The upstream maintainer does not, however, hold copyright on all of >>> the fonts -- they are from a number of different authors. So I am not >>> sure he has the right to relicense the whole package. >> >> They do as described in debian/copyrights, and they hang out in #ascii >> on irc, >> their answer a week ago only to irc was (unfortunately there was no >> reply to the github issue): >> >> <tarzeau> can i get an answer to >> https://github.com/rewtnull/amigafonts/issues/5 please? >> <@truck> "These fonts are replications, not conversions, of the original >> fonts. As such, they are derivative works. I can relicense them, as >> they are mine. There is no upstream." >> <@dMG> thank you truck for clearing it up, that is basically in line >> with what i was thinking to answer too :) > > You don't get a relicense something unilaterally just because it is a > derivative work! Also, "they are derivative works" and "there is no > upstream" would seem to be in tension with each other. > > I think we need more detail on what is meant by "replications". > > -- > Sean Whitton
