On Sábado, 4 de agosto de 2012 19:32:59 Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Noel David Torres Taño <envite@rolamasao.org>, 2012-08-01, 18:19: > >This upload is to fix an RC bug. > > > >Some time ago it was filed a 'serious' bug against the package > >kstars-data-extra-tycho2 that I maintain. The seriousness of the bug > >was related to the possibility of copyright infringement. Bug number is > >#681654. > > > >I've cleared the doubt with a change to the Copyright file that now > >explicites the terms under which original data were obtained. > > I can't see how it fixes an RC bug. > > The bug submitter claims that there's a license problem. If this is > true, then no amount of d/copyright clarification is going to fix it. > > It's also possible the submitter's claims are bogus, and the only > problem here is that the copyright file is confusing. In that case, the > bug should be closed, or downgraded and retitled. > > However, I find the new copyright file _more_ confusing. How can a work > in public domain be "for scientific use only"? > > > p.s. I'm not subscribed, please cc me on replies. I think that on this case the bug is bogus. The original data were on Public Domain at the ADC site. This is a legally binding sentence. It is true that on the same paragraph ADC states that data "are for scientific use only and have no commercial value". I think this is to avoid people trying to get paid for accessing data that are already on the Public Domain, but it may get worth an opinion from debian-legal. Anyway I agree that maybe my wording is a bit confusing. I'm not a lawyer nor an english native speaker. Any help or suggestion from you side will be more than welcome. Thanks Noel Torres er Envite
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.