Re: Copyright assignement for Debian tools?
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 06:51:54PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: It wouldn't make sense to assign copyright to the Debian Project, but it might make sense to assign it to some of our trusted organization, like SPI. I'm myself not aware of mechanisms offered by SPI to allow volunteer copyright assignment. Hence I've just asked on the spi-general mailing list if that is something the organization is interested in supporting. I'll let you know if I hear back of anything actionable; in the mean time you can follow the discussion there. The thread is at http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2013-February/003156.html In essence, at present there is no standardized mechanisms to assign copyright (or enter into specific licensing agreements, e.g. to delegate SPI the power to do license enforcement and/or relicensing) to SPI. My inquiry has raised some interest in the matter and things might change in the future, but they are not there yet. There are entities using copyright notices Copyright (c) SPI... (as we do in our website), but the validity of that practice is dubious. I'm myself skeptical it would do any good when it really comes to needing it, but IANAL. Bottom line: sorry Thomas, not much help at the moment. But thanks to your inquiry things might change in the future. (And might change faster if someone interested and knowledgeable on these matters will join SPI and help out.) Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Copyright assignement for Debian tools?
Thomas Koch writes (Copyright assignement for Debian tools?): I'm currently hacking on the maven-repo-helper package. The source code contains copyright statements from the original author. Now when I add classes it would be logical to add Copyright 2013 Thomas Koch. Right. But I don't see any sense in this. I've no interest to be the copyright holder. I'd much rather like to write Copyright 2013 The Debian Project. (Actually I'm totally annoyed by anything related to copyright...) I see. Do you have any advise for code that originates in the Debian project? Well, I would advise you to retain your copyright and publish your code under a suitable licence. Ie write Copyright (C)2013 Thomas Koch This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/. But if you don't want to do that, you do have the possibility to assign it to Software in the Public Interest. I'm not sure how the law works exactly in your jurisdiction but in the UK and the US to do that you need state it in writing. Something like: Written/modified by Thomas Koch, 2013. I hereby assign my copyright in Gnomovision (all past and future versions) to Software in the Public Interest, Inc. - Thomas Koch 21 Feb 2013 Copyright (C)2013 Software in the Public Interest, Inc This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/. NB that in your jurisdiction it might be necessary to write something on paper or something, but in the UK and the US AFAICT writing it in a computer file is sufficient. SPI doesn't encourage you to do this. But they do promise what they will do with the copyright if you choose to disregard that advice: http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/1998/1998-11-16.iwj.2/ See s3 of that resolution in particular. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20774.14706.554495.804...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Generation of FOAF profiles for all package maintaines (POC)
Quoting Olivier Berger (2013-02-21 21:12:57) Hi. Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes: http://packages.qa.debian.org/cdbs#project schema:contributor [ a foaf:Agent ; foaf:name Jonas Smedegaard ; foaf:account [ a foaf:OnlineAccount ; foaf:accountServiceHomepage http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=d...@jones.dk ; owl:sameAs http://webid.debian.net/maintainers/dr%40jones.dk#account ] ; owl:sameAs http://webid.debian.net/maintainers/dr%40jones.dk#agent ] ; Looks almost correct now - with the exception of my original key point: You still declare above that the Agent by name Jonas Smedegaard is an account. Well, no. I'm saying that the Agent named Jonas Smedegaard *has* an account. foaf:account is the replacing foaf:holdsAccount, it seems (see http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_holdsAccount). Indeed - I stand corrected. I admit that I didn't read the spec, just blindly assumed foaf:account being a superclass of foaf:onlineAccount. I do feel it is a confusing name they picked, but whatever. I believe changing line 5 to foaf:holdsAccount makes it semanticly correct. Note that compared to your example, I've put a foaf:name instead of the account's accountName (which, in webid.debian.net, is the email). Well, an accountName is a unique identifier, whereas a name is not. Hence, the unicity, on webid.debian.net of the foaf:accountName of the OnlineAccounts (since it is the email) whereas the foaf:name of the Agent allows homonymy. So I hope these RDF representations will semantically correct now. Tell me if I've overlooked details and made a mistake. This part is no error (as far as I can see), just a possible weakness. I believe the semantics are correct now. P.S.: there's apparently a bug in that http://webid.debian.net/maintainers/dr%40jones.dk#agent's foaf:firstName is 'Maintainer:' :-/ ... will see if I can spot the culprit perl code ;) Perl code? Where? Perhaps I can help... I looked very briefly at a single git commit you referred to, but was immediately scared off by a pile of XSLT. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
