Re: Candidates for removal
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 18:23 +0200, Florian Ernst wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:37:01AM -0500, Sam Hart wrote:
> > [...]
> > [...]
> > Nearly every graphic, sound and animation was something that I created
> > except for a few images which were pulled from the Copyright Free Photo
> > Archive here: http://gimp-savvy.com/PHOTO-ARCHIVE/index.html
> ...and the copyright (and redistribution terms) for those images needs
> to be explicitely listed.
Actually, I'm not 100% this really has to be the case on material I
originally created. I assumed that by placing material I original
created inside an archive where everything else was covered by the GPL,
I was licensing them under the GPL.
As I understand it, only those from the Copyright Free Photo archive
need to be listed specifically. I don't mind explicitly listing
copyright and redistribution terms on each of the media files I created,
but it seems like an exorbitant amount of work considering they were
just intended to be covered by the GPL of the project as a whole anyway.
If this isn't the case, then I can find /many/ other projects out there
where artwork, sounds, etc. were created for projects that would need to
> Only _most_ of the pictures at this archive
> are really free to use, as I understand it. E.g. this archive lists
> the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as one of their main sources, but
> the FWS say "Not all the information on our site is in the public
> domain. Some images/graphics are licensed for use under the copyright
> law, [...]" (<http://www.fws.gov/help/policies.html#copyright>). Please
> see <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=218908;msg=29>
> for a longer list dealing with tuxtype_1.5.3 (not in Debian, but parts
> of this list apply to 1.0 currently present in Debian as well, see
Yes, I actually did see that. I'd need to check again (as it has been so
long) but I'm reasonably certain what was originally in 1.0 came
specifically from the Copyright Free archive as listed before.
> BTW, there's someone interested in maintaining tuxtype, but currently
> his approach seems to be to remove all questionable media files from
> the package... Nathanael Nerode is on the spot, however.
And, as I said, I am available to anyone who has specific questions. I'm
no longer part of the Tux Typing team (I really should track them all
down, honestly, and see what's up) and I don't think I even have CVS
access on sf.net any more, so I can't specifically change any of these
at this point.
However, if whoever wants to maintain it wants to contact me privately
with a list of questionable media files, I would be more than happy to
tell where the ones I know of came from.
.O. Sam Hart, firstname.lastname@example.org
..O Progeny Linux Systems, Inc