[Pkg-cli-apps-commits] [SCM] openbve branch, master, updated. debian/1.4.0.0-1-11-g59a04f3

Tue Jan 17 19:41:09 UTC 2012

The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
commit 9ae7ec26d6b58edcaf3c834039272b86ae2a4c83
Author: Paul Sladen <debian at paul.sladen.org>
Date:   Tue Jan 17 14:05:50 2012 +0100

    debian/copyright: merge in 'licence-background.txt' per #debian-ftp and rfs-feedback

diff --git a/debian/README.source b/debian/README.source
index 5e04959..c09054e 100644
--- a/debian/README.source
+++ b/debian/README.source
@@ -2,9 +2,12 @@ Braindump, Paul Sladen 2012-01-10
 
 Licensing:
 
-The 'debian/licence-background.txt' file covers the background or
-working with upstream (the intent and appreciation for sharing and
-openness has always been there, even if the wording has evolved).
+The 'debian/copyright' contains both the short 'public domain' licence
+from upstream, and associated context and discussion that demonstrate
+the wider intent of the upstream licensing.  This has been combined
+and included all together per the advice recieved on #debian-ftp about
+public domain licences being acceptable, but ideally with supporting
+context.
 
 
 Preparing new upstream source:
diff --git a/debian/copyright b/debian/copyright
index 1ee94f7..25b1684 100644
--- a/debian/copyright
+++ b/debian/copyright
@@ -49,8 +49,109 @@ License:
     purpose.
 
 Comment:
+  Below are some of the accompany statements that Openbve and the
+  upstream developers have made regarding how the work can be used,
+  this provider great insight and context into the wishes of upstream
+  beyond the simple and permissive "public domain" wording.
+
+  It's notable that the intent and appreciation for sharing and
+  openness has always present with upstream, as can be seen from the
+  name "Open...".  Openbve was itself a reaction to "freeware", but
+  non-distributable (and non-fixable) version of "BVE Train Simulator".
+
+  Although the intent has been constant, the PD wording has evolved,
+  attempting to remain short.  Upstream have welcomed input where it
+  as been offered on the licence-terminology; as can be seen in the
+  discussion and the preference would be for copyright law to not
+  exist (international treaties dictate otherwise for the moment).
+
+  History
+
+  In 2008, in preparation for Debian packaging, discussion was started
+  with upstream for the upstream bugtracker/forum and is copied below
+  for context.  (It was at the time the closest introduction to the
+  licence and intent behind the Openbve project).
+
   More information on the thinking behind the "license free" intend has been
-  saved and included in the 'debian/licence-background.txt' file:
+  saved in this 'debian/copyright' file, the essence of which is: 
+
+    Post by michelle on Sat, 14th Feb 2009, 18:00, UTC
+
+    I have been approached by some individuals over the time, including
+    from the GNU project and the Ubuntu Foundation (as it appears at
+    least), and was told that they lack a means of "legal security" for
+    reuse without an explicit license. You can read my above post on
+    details about my attitude regarding this matter, but as a start, I
+    have decided to put the following line on the homepage and will also
+    include it in any later release:
+
+      " This program, along with all documentation provided, is dedicated
+	to the public. I do not pose any restrictions on how this material
+	can be used, and explicitly encourage redistribution and
+	modification for any purpose. "
+
+  Full thread from which the above is taken: 
+  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
+    http://openbve.freeforums.org/licence-t39.html
+    == Licence ==
+
+    Post by Sacro on Sat, 26th Apr 2008, 16:39, UTC
+
+    Just out of curiosity, what licence applies to OpenBVE? It'd be nice
+    to know if it's GPL or BSD or whatever as I'm quite interested in
+    helping out.
+
+    Sacro
+
+    == Re: Licence ==
+
+    Post by michelle on Sun, 27th Apr 2008, 07:43, UTC
+
+    My attitude differs from so called "free software" licenses. I try to
+    explain:
+
+    With proprietary software, the developers usually try to restrict what
+    you are allowed to do with the software to the uttermost extreme that
+    is legally possible. This falls under the category of copyright.
+
+    Then there is something that is sometimes called green copyright. So
+    called free software falls in this category. As with proprietary
+    software, a license is used to tell users what they are allowed to do
+    and what not. The difference to proprietary software is that so called
+    free software licenses are usually much more permissive, yet the
+    author decides what you are allowed to do and what not. So called free
+    software is usually attributed to derive from "freedom" instead of
+    "free of charge". Still, if the author employs a license telling other
+    people what they can or cannot do, this inherently cannot have
+    anything to do with freedom.
+
+    Then there is something called public domain, which I consider to be
+    an inherently good thing as everyone has eventually the same rights as
+    the author. However, releasing a work into the public domain is not
+    legally meaningful in many countries. Also, releasing a work into the
+    public domain (if possible) depends on the generosity of the author,
+    and this decision is made by the author.
+
+    My attitude is even one step further: I am opposed to copyright, thus
+    I marked the game with the legally not meaningful phrase of
+    "anti-copyright". It is legally meaningless, because in every country
+    that has some form of copyright, it would require these laws to be
+    abandoned. Still, why do I have this attitude?
+
+    With a license, I would be telling other people what they can or
+    cannot do. I am not such a person. I will not make any silly
+    restrictions on how you can use this program, I will not tell you to
+    put my name on any derived work, I will never ever give "permission"
+    for you modify or redistribute the software, because I don't think
+    that it is up to me telling you what you can or can't do. You should
+    make this decision for yourself.
+
+    I hope this briefly explained the situation.
+
+    User avatar
+    michelle
+
+    == Re: Licence ==
 
     Post by michelle on Sat, 14th Feb 2009, 18:00, UTC
 
@@ -67,6 +168,57 @@ Comment:
 	can be used, and explicitly encourage redistribution and
 	modification for any purpose. "
 
+    michelle
+
+    == Re: Licence ==
+
+    Way to go Michelle!
+
+    Good to hear from another lonely soul out there who gets the true
+    meaning of freedom.
+
+    BVEColorado
+  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+  Managed content
+
+  In Openbve=1.4.0.0 in-program managed content was introduced, Openbve
+  has gone out of their way to ensure that anything to be included in
+  the managed content repositary is explicitly distributable.  Although
+  this does affect Debian/Ubuntu directly, is shows an understanding
+  of the problems that can be present without having explicit statements:
+
+    http://trainsimframework.org/develop/managed/licenses.html
+    Managed add-ons - Accepted licenses
+
+    All packages that you want to make available under managed content
+    must contain a LICENSE file in the root directory of the
+    package. The LICENSE file must contain either one of the following
+    texts:
+
+      -----------------------------------------------------------------
+      This add-on is placed under the following license:
+
+      YOU ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE VERBATIM COPIES OF THIS ADD-ON.
+
+      There are no terms and no conditions. This applies worldwide and
+      is unlimited in duration. If additional permissions are granted,
+      they are covered in a separate license.
+      -----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+      -----------------------------------------------------------------
+      THIS ADD-ON IS PLACED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
+
+      If this is not legally possible, you are given permission to
+      use the add-on in any way you want (including redistribution
+      and modification). There are no terms and no conditions.
+      This applies worldwide and is unlimited in duration.
+      -----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+  This do not affect plugins packaged in Debian, but are what is
+  necessary should a developer wish to make their content available
+  from the new in-program managed content downloading system.
+
 Files: debian/*
 Copyright: 2009-2012 Paul Sladen
 License: permissive
diff --git a/debian/openbve.docs b/debian/openbve.docs
index c6ec424..6a1b15f 100644
--- a/debian/openbve.docs
+++ b/debian/openbve.docs
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
-debian/licence-background.txt
 debian/known-issues.txt
 debian/routes-and-trains.txt
 debian/changelog.html

-- 
openbve

