On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:12 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:19:39AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner
wrote:
On Dec 10, 2010, at 4:14 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:08:15AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner
wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 11:14 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The grandfathered licensing terms include this:
The authors hereby grant permission [...], provided that
existing > copyright notices are retained in all copies and that
this notice > is included verbatim in any distributions.
We therefore need to involve upstream and request them to
include above licensing, as their granted license was violated
when the header was stripped, and they therefore cannot pass on
a license to us (or anyone else) for that file.
All of the code in that library, borrowed or not, is under the
same license: the Tcl/Tk license. Is it still necessary to
include multiple copies of the Tcl/Tk license as long as we have
the copyrights listed in debian/copyright?
Maybe if you can suggest an alternative interpretation of
"provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all
copies".
I can only come up with one interpretation, which means the
licensing upstream passed to us is bogus, since they lost _their_
license!
I do see notice of copyright in debian/copyright with each line
marked Copyright: I know the proprietary software Cycling '74 Max/
MSP uses code from Pd, which is BSD licensed. They do include the
line of credit in their own copyright statement, but they don't
include the actual BSD license file that I could find. So I'm not
the only one to have that opinion.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I was just illustrating that it is common practice, tho its not 100%
correct according to the letter of license. Duplicating the copyright
notice alone does certainly fully respect the spirit of the license,
IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice
It is not obvious to me why did you referenced that page. Was it
because it mentions copyright notices no longer required in USA
jurisdiction? Well, that is irrelevant for my point, as I am not
talking about claiming copyright, but about obeying a license: the
_license_ requires copyrigh notices to be reserved IN ALL COPIES.
I was trying to point out that the notice is not the license, its just
the "Copyright 2000, Hans-Christoph Steiner" line.
.hc
If e.g. IOhannes m. zmoelnig is mentioned due to Debian
packaging, I suggest to add a copyright (and licensing! they
always go together) statement in ebian/rules, and keep debian/
copyright as a reference file rather than containing unique info
on its own.
You don't want to claim copyright for the Debian packaging?
Personally, I always consider my own packaging work either public
domain, or part of the copyright of the upstream software itself.
I see no benefit to adding copyright complexity.
Ah, yes. I remmeber now that you made that point earlier on too.
Sorry for bothering you with that once more. I do respect your
standpoint.
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have nothing to fear from love and commitment." - New York Senator
Diane Savino, trying to convince the NY Senate to pass a gay marriage
bill
_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers