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

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

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 at 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