Re: [RFS] cmarrows
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 11:10:53PM +0200, Matej Kosik wrote:
> Hello Justin,
>
> Thank you for the your answer.
>
> Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Uff. I wrongly assumed that software available on the internet without
> any restrictions (no licensing information, no "public domain" statement
> ) could be considered to be "public domain". As you say, it is not true.
>
> Thus, the original software is "all rights reserved". That means that
> noone (other than the original author---the coopyright holder) can:
> - distribute it
> - modify it
> - ditribute modified versions.
> Am I right?
Yes; the copyright holder also has the right to relicense (different
from "sublicense") the code. I'll note that it is arguably considered
a "fair use" right to look at the code, since it exists on a public
web page, but that doesn't mean you can do anything else, even compile
it. I'll also note that [ "original author" = "copyright holder" ] is
often true, it is not necessarily true; employers are (by default) the
copyright holders for works created by their employees.
> If that is true, it (unless it would be relicensed or put to public
> domain by copyright holder) it would be illegal to include it to the
> Debian project (either in `main' or to `non-free' sections). Am I right?
Correct. `main' is a closed set of {build-,}depends, contrib is
software that {build-},depends on something that isn't in main, but is
licensed consistently with the dfsg. Non-free are not "dfsg free",
but must still be distributable!
Justin
Reply to: