[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED



On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:02:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 12:36:28PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > 	May I remark the phrase "The copyright in such work is
> > independent of (...)  any copyright protection in the preexisting
> > material."
> 
> "Independent of" doesn't mean "supersedes".  It means "coexists with".

	"Coexist" doesn't mean that the original "supersedes" the
translation, they can be different.
> 
> > "Article 2
> > 
> > (3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations
> > of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without
> > prejudice to the copyright in the original work."
> > 
> > This means that they have their own copyright but do not change the
> > original work's copyright.
> 
> Exactly.  The original copyright still applies.
> 
	No it doesn't.
	The original copyright applies to the original work.
	The translation's copyright applies to the translation.
	

> > Of course (article 8 of the WIPO treaty) the original authors have a
> > right to make and authorise translations.
> 
> So the two copyrights exist together on the translated work.
> 
	NO!!!!!
	I'm starting to think I do have a communication problem here.

> Any DFSG-free license will grant license to produce translations, since
> translation is a form of modification.

	I'm not sure that's valid under copyright law. 
> 
> Sometimes people find non-DFSG-free documentation in Debian, they file
> bugs, and the package maintainer tells them to "stop wasting their
> time."[1]

	I read this a long time ago.

	I question the ftp-maintainer because he did *not* file a bug, he
REJECTED the package based on this when the package in woody/sarge
whatever has not been bugged. I'm not going to do it BTW. Feel free to do
so.

> > Please don't ask for a package what you don't do for others. Either do it
> > for all or don't.
> 
> I have not heard anyone proposing that ldp-es receive discriminatory
> treatment.  If other translations of the ldp package, and/or the ldp
> package itself, have licensing problems, then they require our
> attention.

	A package that is removed from incoming when the bug has not been
reported *is* discrimination. I don't object against doc-rfc being pulled
out of Debian (although I do lament it) but I don't think ftp-maint has
acted properly here.
	But that's another issue.


> licensing issues as it is today.  Lawsuits, both real and threatened,
> against Free Software developers from large software companies and
> speech-suppressing laws like the DMCA are largely responsible for the
> increased level of scrutiny that licensing issues receive, not just in
> Debian but in the Free Software community in general.
> 

Agreed. But it seems a little bit excesive to prevent a package from
fixing a RC bug when there is no such threat. These documentation, and all
translations, are being distributed in TLDP (The Linux Documentation
Project). Debian would be the last place to have issues.

In any case I'm trying to normalise the licensing issues with the people
at LuCAS. However I'm afraid that no one has analised the many issues that
we can find on our documentation-only packages and translations:

$ apt-cache search doc- |wc -l
     89


We need a policy regarding which documentation is going to be allowed into
Debian, and the DFSG IMHO do not apply to documentation properly (but
let's not get into *that* thread again).

	Regards

	Javi

Attachment: pgp_gRCMDx0LE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: