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

Re: Sorry, no more RC bugs for non-free data in main (was: Bug#385115: chromium-data: Unclear license for some files)

Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:

> OK, you win, I will not continue with this. Do whatever you want with the
> bug. I'm sending this message to debian-legal, in case other people care.
> On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
>> For all you've said up to this point, the sound files being used could be
>> in the public domain; in which case the only controlling copyright is
>> that governing the packaging and support files.
> OK, so I take files from the web and put them on packages. They could
> be in public domain, so there is no problem unless someone find that
> they are not, uh?
> I think it is silly. Copyright does not work this way. Something
> should be treated as copyrighted unless clearly stated it is under
> public domain.
>> That they are unknown to *you* is not grounds for an RC bug claiming that
>> upstream is distributing files illegally.
> And they are unknown to upstream. AFAIK, upstream does never claim
> that those files are under artistic license nor under public domain.
> It is not me. Why it is this so difficult to understand?
>> If you're going to claim that the license on these sounds is not what
>> upstream and the packaging claim it is, the burden of proof lies with
>> you.
> Again, upstream does not claim he is copyright holder, and license for
> them is not specified. He only claims that he took the files from
> other sources. Even if the files are free, credit should be provided,
> and the origin clarified. As a positive example, look at this package
> (monsterz-data), it is a example of someone who has taken the time to
> correctly provided credits and copyright information for the included
> wav files:
> /usr/share/doc/monsterz-data/copyright
> To put all copyrights and references in detail for code and data can
> be boring, but omitting them makes no favor to free software. Please,
> note that including source code for data files is a different issue.
> This is about copyright problems on Debian main archive.
> I'm getting tired of all of this. There are still an important number
> of packages that carry unlicensed data with them, but I WON'T CONTINUE
> reporting bugs. Believe it or not, I have lots of more exciting things
> to do than searching for copyright problems and reporting them on my
> free time. And instead of people helping me to solve the problems and
> make Debian a better product, I got negative responses saying the
> problem is myself.
> Defending my position each time takes a lot of time (English is not my
> native language and my level of English is rather poor). Things I'm
> reporting are obviously not allowed by current Debian guidelines, so
> justifying and fighting for them each time is a waste of my time.
> If most people here thinks that we should not care about this,
No, you're doing the right thing.  Steve is acting odd.

> I would 
> prefer that guidelines to be updated in consequence, so people who
> really care about this kind of copyright issues would know before
> choosing to use Debian. So Debian will remain 100% free unless we got
> sort of time for the next release, or something taken from the web is
> public domain unless someone demonstrate that it is not...
> So do not expect myself to give any more of my time to this. And you
> can downgrade the priority again or even close the bug if you want, I
> do not mind anymore.

Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@fastmail.fm>

Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...

Reply to: