[SCM] pd-cyclone/master: Rewrite copyright file: Main licensing changed; Authors dropped; Lack of licensing added!!!

[Jonas Smedegaard]

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.


>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.



>>>>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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20101210/354008b7/attachment.pgp>