[SCM] pd-cyclone/master: Rewrite copyright file: Main licensing changed; Authors dropped; Lack of licensing added!!!

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Dec 10, 2010, at 4:14 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:08:15AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner  
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 11:14 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> The grandfathered licensing terms include this:

>>>
>>> > The authors hereby grant permission [...], provided that  
>>> existing > copyright notices are retained in all copies and that  
>>> this notice > is included verbatim in any distributions.
>>>
>>> We therefore need to involve upstream and request them to include  
>>> above licensing, as their granted license was violated when the  
>>> header was stripped, and they therefore cannot pass on a license  
>>> to us (or anyone else) for that file.
>>
>> All of the code in that library, borrowed or not, is under the same  
>> license: the Tcl/Tk license.  Is it still necessary to include  
>> multiple copies of the Tcl/Tk license as long as we have the  
>> copyrights listed in debian/copyright?
>
> Maybe if you can suggest an alternative interpretation of "provided  
> that existing copyright notices are retained in all copies".
>
> I can only come up with one interpretation, which means the  
> licensing upstream passed to us is bogus, since they lost _their_  
> license!

I do see notice of copyright in debian/copyright with each line marked  
Copyright:  I know the proprietary software Cycling '74 Max/MSP uses  
code from Pd, which is BSD licensed.  They do include the line of  
credit in their own copyright statement, but they don't include the  
actual BSD license file that I could find.  So I'm not the only one to  
have that opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice


>>> If e.g. IOhannes m. zmoelnig is mentioned due to Debian packaging,  
>>> I suggest to add a copyright (and licensing! they always go  
>>> together) statement in ebian/rules, and keep debian/copyright as a  
>>> reference file rather than containing unique info on its own.
>
> You don't want to claim copyright for the Debian packaging?

Personally, I always consider my own packaging work either public  
domain, or part of the copyright of the upstream software itself.  I  
see no benefit to adding copyright complexity.

>> Ok, I updated the copyright based on this thread, deleted
>> copyright_hints, and pushed my changes.  I think that should sort out
>> the copyright issues.  As far I am concerned, this ready for upload.
>
> Agreed.  I'm working on it now.

Excellent, thanks!

.hc


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looking at things from a more basic level, you can come up with a more  
direct solution... It may sound small in theory, but it in practice,  
it can change entire economies.     - Amy Smith