On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:17:29PM +0100, Felix Natter wrote: > As it is, this "license agreement" is probably not suitable for packages > in main [1]. s/probably/definitely/g > --> Which criteria does the license agreement for Freeplane artwork have > to meet in order for Freeplane to be allowed in main? The DFSG - http://www.debian.org/social_contract > --> Which licenses can you recommend? Can we simply modify the existing > agreement in order to transfer more rights from the copyright holder > (artist)? CC* 3.0+ is great for creative works. The GPL also works, to some degree, as does permissive licenses like MIT/Expat. I'd prefer CC0 myself. Also keep in mind licensing != trademark usage. For instance, Debian has trademark usage, but it's logo is DFSG free, license-wise. > --> How about compatibility with Freeplane's (source code-)license > (GPL-2+)? Irrelevant. It's loaded at runtime, just as the GIMP would load a non-free image. Totally fine. Those images just can't be in main. > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2013/12/msg00236.html > > Thank you very much and Best Regards, > -- > Felix Natter Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature