Re: [RFS] cmarrows
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:47:37AM +0200, Matej Kosik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have created a Debian package for `cmarrows'.
>
> "This is a METAPOST package for arrows and braces in the computer modern
> style. The arrows offer the same flexibility as the ordinary arrow macro
> in metapost. The braces can be made to follow an arbitrary path and you
> can control at which path time the middle piece is drawn."
>
> Motivation: the `plain' METAPOST format contains a single command
> (drawarrow) for drawing one kind of arrows. This package contains
> definitions of various common kinds of arrows which could be useful
> within METAPOST figures. I used this macro package for some time. I
> think that it is useful (for METAPOST fans).
>
> Here:
> http://altair.dcs.elf.stuba.sk/wiki/Kosik/DebianStuff
> is information how to get the current version of the package I created.
>
> The fact that the original software was put to public domain (no
Does something in the software package say so?
> licensing restrictions were imposed on it by the original author AFAIK)
By default, none of the required freedoms (distribution, modification)
are allowed; it is equivalent to "All rights reserved". A 1-line
"public domain" note is the shortest you can get away with, and only
then when all the supporting documentation is consistent with the PD
"license", and there's no reason to believe that the author's intent
is otherwise. The reason being that it's almost too easy to stick
"public domain" into a source file one day, and then decide to revoke
it later, or to be upset some day when you decide you really meant
"unrestricted rights granted for distribution and modification on the
condition that this software is not used for commercial purposes", and
that various OS distributor are selling CDs containing that software.
It already happens that people release stuff under the GPL and then
get upset when someone modifies the software..
> permits me to attach FSF GPL to it. I did that.
I would recommend to not do that; Debian has nothing against PD
software; just mention it in ./debian/copyright, and document where
you saw that it was PD. Some see the GPL as more restrictive rather
than less than eg. PD or MIT license, and there's simply no reason to
pick an arbitrary license.
Justin
Reply to: