Bug#906536: Sponsor for my package "cavestory-nx"
(dropping list from CC) On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 05:04:36PM -0300, Carlos Donizete Froes wrote: > Hi, > > > You cannot just drop paragraphs from d/copyright at will, it needs to > > be backed up by a statement of the copyright owners. > > Sorry, I did not understand the previously replied email > and I ended up removing it. > Yes, you misunderstood me on this occasion. I tried to do two things: a) highlight that there was some desire from the author for NC license that needs confirming, e.g. maybe they want it to be CC-BY-NC? b) point out, as Tobi did, that you need some public documentation of the authors intent in order to document that in the copyright > > Can you, by change, forward the original statement of "pixel", on which > > basis you wrote d/copyright, to this bug/list? > > Yes, follows the forwarded message. What we're looking for here is an unambiguous public declaration of the license from Pixel. I'm afraid the forwarded email doesn't satisfy that. It's confusing regarding Cave Story/Vorbis and MIT/BSD and nothing in it mentions Public Domain. It seems theres some language barrier here, but first you need to find out what terms the author is after (I'm assuming here that it's art and not software), the most basic starting point is this: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees#Considerations_for_licensors Only after the author has decided on terms can they go about choosing a license, which may or may not be public domain, but if it is, there needs to be a clear public statement of that, e.g. the CC0 waiver I linked. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#906536: Sponsor for my package "cavestory-nx"
Hi, > You cannot just drop paragraphs from d/copyright at will, it needs to > be backed up by a statement of the copyright owners. Sorry, I did not understand the previously replied email and I ended up removing it. > Can you, by change, forward the original statement of "pixel", on which > basis you wrote d/copyright, to this bug/list? Yes, follows the forwarded message. Mensagem encaminhada De: Pixel Para: Carlos Donizete Froes Assunto: Re: Requesting to add a readme or a simple license to your projects Data: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 19:44:16 +0900 > Ogg Vorbis is BSD License in this sidte. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis > > So DropEncoderOgg doesn't need have "MIT License". > I'm wrong? > > Thank you. > > > 2018-07-14 4:37 GMT+09:00 Carlos Donizete Froes : > > Can you add a simple license to Cave Story and other games? > > > > Both me and other users of your games will be less concerned about > > disclosing and redistributing them on other sites. > > > > Create a readme.txt (text in english) within the 'data' directory, a > > short and simple permissive license, with conditions that require only > > copyright preservation. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Em 13-07-2018 11:17, Pixel escreveu: > > > DropEncoderOgg should have ReadMe with MIT License's text. > > > -Is that because of DropEncoderOgg use OggVorbis? > > > > > > Cave Story don't use OggVorbis. > > > Thank you. > > > > > > 2018-07-11 17:39 GMT+09:00 Carlos Donizete Froes : > > > > Hi Pixel. > > > > > > > > Yes, could you add this ReadMe.txt that has in 'DropEncoderOgg' also in > > > > your > > > > games? > > > > > > > > Model: 洞窟物語(Cave Story) do not have this ReadMe.txt, could you create > > > > it for the > > > > game? > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > Em qua, 2018-07-11 às 11:41 +0900, Pixel escreveu: > > > > > Hi, Carlos. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know English well. > > > > > so I don't think I understood everything of your message. > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean "Pixel should print MIT License in the ReadMe"? > > > > > which application's is it? "DropEncoderOgg" ? > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-07-11 4:42 GMT+09:00 Carlos Donizete Froes : > > > > > > Hi Pixel, > > > > > > > > > > > > Congratulations on your great projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have verified that all your files do not have readme or license in > > > > > > your projects[1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://studiopixel.sakura.ne.jp/archives/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > You don’t have to do anything to not offer a license. You may > > > > > > however > > > > > > wish to add a copyright notice and statement that you are not > > > > > > offering > > > > > > any license in a prominent place (e.g., your project’s README) so > > > > > > that > > > > > > users don’t assume you made an oversight. > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be possible to add a readme by placing only simple > > > > > > copyright > > > > > > restrictions or by adding an license.txt? > > > > > > > > > > > > License model: > > > > > > > > > > > > - MIT License[2] - A short and simple permissive license with > > > > > > conditions > > > > > > only requiring preservation of copyright and license notices. > > > > > > Licensed > > > > > > works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under > > > > > > different terms and without source code. > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit > > > > > > > > > > > > I await your response. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > -- > > ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Carlos Donizete Froes [a.k.a coringao] > > ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ - https://wiki.debian.org/coringao > > ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ GPG: 4096R/B638B780 > > ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀ 2157 630B D441 A775 BEFF D35F FA63 ADA6 B638 B780 -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Carlos Donizete Froes [a.k.a coringao] ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ - https://wiki.debian.org/coringao ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ GPG: 4096R/B638B780 ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀ 2157 630B D441 A775 BEFF D35F FA63 ADA6 B638 B780 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#906536: Sponsor for my package "cavestory-nx"
On Sun, 2018-08-26 at 15:44 -0300, Carlos Donizete Froes wrote: > Hi Phil, > > > I believe this is the problematic section of debian/copyright? I > > also > > found https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Public_Domain helpful. > > I would like the section of this game to be "contrib/games", > but because of this problem I left it as a "non-free/games". > > > Files: data/* > > Copyright: not applicable > > Author: 2004 Studio Pixel > > License: public-domain > > This software was written by Daisuke Amaya also known by his art > > name 'Pixel'. > > . > > You absolutely can't use these in anything commercial; the work is > > not subject > > to copyright in any jurisdiction. > > . > > This file is in the public domain. It is provided "as is", without > > warranty of > > any kind. Use at your own risk. > > > > The second paragraph is self-contradicting - if it's not subject to > > copyright, then it's use can't be restricted to NC. Perhaps the > > author > > would prefer a different license? (any form of NC is still non- > > free) > > Removed this second paragraph from the copyright. > > To avoid future disputes, after a private email conversation it is > > necessary to have a public record of the conclusion. Perhaps the > > author > > would be happy to email a CC0 style waiver: > > https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/waiver > > > > * For public-domain "Copyright" line means who had the authority to > > license the work, i.e. the author, not "not applicable" > > * Since the full name is known, I would put that in the copyright > > line > > e.g Daisuke "Pixel" Amaya > > Many thanks for the tip, and modified according to the instructions. You cannot just drop paragraphs from d/copyright at will, it needs to be backed up by a statement of the copyright owners. Can you, by change, forward the original statement of "pixel", on which basis you wrote d/copyright, to this bug/list? Thanks! -- tobi
Bug#906536: Sponsor for my package "cavestory-nx"
Hi Phil, > I believe this is the problematic section of debian/copyright? I also > found https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Public_Domain helpful. I would like the section of this game to be "contrib/games", but because of this problem I left it as a "non-free/games". > Files: data/* > Copyright: not applicable > Author: 2004 Studio Pixel > License: public-domain > This software was written by Daisuke Amaya also known by his art name > 'Pixel'. > . > You absolutely can't use these in anything commercial; the work is not > subject > to copyright in any jurisdiction. > . > This file is in the public domain. It is provided "as is", without warranty > of > any kind. Use at your own risk. > > The second paragraph is self-contradicting - if it's not subject to > copyright, then it's use can't be restricted to NC. Perhaps the author > would prefer a different license? (any form of NC is still non-free) Removed this second paragraph from the copyright. > To avoid future disputes, after a private email conversation it is > necessary to have a public record of the conclusion. Perhaps the author > would be happy to email a CC0 style waiver: > https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/waiver > > * For public-domain "Copyright" line means who had the authority to > license the work, i.e. the author, not "not applicable" > * Since the full name is known, I would put that in the copyright line > e.g Daisuke "Pixel" Amaya Many thanks for the tip, and modified according to the instructions. > > > Why do you have 3 sponsorship-requests bugs open for the same package? > > > Please close two of them and re-title the bug you leave open to the new > > > version. > > > > Okay, I'll close these open requests. > > As well as closing 903872 & 905984 for the old version, it would help if > 906536 blocks the ITP but lose the "[ITP]" in the subject. FWIW these > days I don't bother with sponsorship-requests for games and just post > directly to the mailing list and only if I get no response raise an RFS. I'm sorry for my mistakes made with "sponsorship-requests", in the next packages I'll be more careful. :( Closed 903872 & 905984 in d/changelog. Retitled Short Description: #906536 Thanks! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Carlos Donizete Froes [a.k.a coringao] ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ - https://wiki.debian.org/coringao ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ GPG: 4096R/B638B780 ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀ 2157 630B D441 A775 BEFF D35F FA63 ADA6 B638 B780 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#906536: Sponsor for my package "cavestory-nx"
> > What changed since tobi's comment in May on the ITP bug? > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=894865#30 > > I exchanged emails with the developer of the non-free files and had to make > corrections from the licenses and added a disclaimer about this package. I believe this is the problematic section of debian/copyright? I also found https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Public_Domain helpful. Files: data/* Copyright: not applicable Author: 2004 Studio Pixel License: public-domain This software was written by Daisuke Amaya also known by his art name 'Pixel'. . You absolutely can't use these in anything commercial; the work is not subject to copyright in any jurisdiction. . This file is in the public domain. It is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind. Use at your own risk. The second paragraph is self-contradicting - if it's not subject to copyright, then it's use can't be restricted to NC. Perhaps the author would prefer a different license? (any form of NC is still non-free) To avoid future disputes, after a private email conversation it is necessary to have a public record of the conclusion. Perhaps the author would be happy to email a CC0 style waiver: https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/waiver * For public-domain "Copyright" line means who had the authority to license the work, i.e. the author, not "not applicable" * Since the full name is known, I would put that in the copyright line e.g Daisuke "Pixel" Amaya > > Why do you have 3 sponsorship-requests bugs open for the same package? > > Please close two of them and re-title the bug you leave open to the new > > version. > > Okay, I'll close these open requests. As well as closing 903872 & 905984 for the old version, it would help if 906536 blocks the ITP but lose the "[ITP]" in the subject. FWIW these days I don't bother with sponsorship-requests for games and just post directly to the mailing list and only if I get no response raise an RFS. -- Phil Morrell (emorrp1) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
