Bug#757176: RFS: xombrero/2:1.6.3-1 -- Minimalist's web browser
2014-08-17 17:27 GMT-03:00 Luis Henriques <henrix@camandro.org>:
> Hi Eriberto,
Hi!!!
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:32:55PM -0300, Eriberto wrote:
>> Hi Luis,
>>
>> Sorry for my delay and congratulations for your work. I agree with
>> your considerations.
>
> Again, thanks a *lot* for reviewing my xombrero package!
You are welcome. :-)
> For example, in your example above, I would interpret it as having file
> 'xombrero.css' copyrighted by all those authors, even if the real copyright
> owner is only Josh Rickmar; the same is true for the xombrero.1 file: the
> only copyright owners are Marco Peereboom, Jason McIntyre and Josh
> Rickmar.
>
> My debian/copyright contains more detailed information, that allows to
> know exactly who owns the copyright for each file individually. Of course
> I do group some of the files, but the copyrights are so different between
> different files that I decided not to use the 'Files: *' pattern (although
> I use the 'Files: debian/*' pattern).
If you and I write a book, our names will be put on the cover without
a distinction. So, when three people write a program, all are
upstreams. So, is uncommon separate the upstreams. A split in several
paragraphs will make the maintaining of this package hard. I can
upload your package. However, I never saw it and, maybe, the
FTP-Master can reject. (your package will be NEW because it doesn't
exist on Debian)
Please, read these itens:
1. Item Copyright in
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#fields
2. Example 4 in
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#fields
A conclusion: I understand your idea but it is no usual.
> Anyway, I'm OK following the approach you're suggesting -- I just want to
> confirm that my understanding is correct and this is exactly what you want
> me to do.
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> I have two doubts:
>>
>> Where you saw that the files style.css, *.png, tordisabled.ico and
>> torenabled.ico are using the CC-BY-SA license?
>>
>
> The license for the style.css is mentioned in the xombrero website
> (https://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/xombrero).
Ok. It is a common problem with CC, GPL and others. From CC site[1]:
"You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or
Publicly Perform."
So, the license needs to be put inside the tarball. If not, you can't
refer to this license and, consequently, the png will use the same
license of the main source code.
[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
>
> Regarding the tor icons, they are reused from the tor project and the
> terms and license we're taken from the project website
> (https://www.torproject.org/).
The same problem. The upstream failed when reused a code and didn't
describe the original license and credits (copyright notice).
Consequently: he can be prosecuted and you can't put a not explicit
license in d/copyright.
> Finally, the *png files licenses were confirmed in private emails with the
> xombrero project developers (iirc, when I first packaged xxxterm there was
> not public mailing list yet).
Can you guess what I will say you?
>> Where you found *.xpm files?
>>
>
> Ah, this one is generated my me in debian/rules from the xpm files.
Ah, ok. They are derivated from *.png. The same problem with the license.
Feel free to ask me about my explanation and thaks for your work and interest.
Cheers,
Eriberto
Reply to: