for the record
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> Date: April 4, 2020 at 23:32:23 GMT+2 To: Gürkan Myczko <gurkan@phys.ethz.ch>, Sean Whitton <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org> Cc: kilobyte@angband.pl, Debian Fonts Task Force <pkg-fonts-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org> Subject: Re: Comments regarding fonts-amiga_1.02-1_amd64.changes
Hello Gürkan,On Fri 03 Apr 2020 at 01:21PM +02, Gürkan Myczko wrote:Hi Sean,
I notice that upstream has relicensed from CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 to GPL with
the fonts exception, after a previous REJECT from NEW.
Yes that is true.
The upstream maintainer does not, however, hold copyright on all of
the fonts -- they are from a number of different authors. So I am not
sure he has the right to relicense the whole package.
They do as described in debian/copyrights, and they hang out in #ascii
on irc,
their answer a week ago only to irc was (unfortunately there was no
reply to the github issue):
<tarzeau> can i get an answer to
https://github.com/rewtnull/amigafonts/issues/5 please?
<@truck> "These fonts are replications, not conversions, of the original
fonts. As such, they are derivative works. I can relicense them, as
they are mine. There is no upstream."
<@dMG> thank you truck for clearing it up, that is basically in line
with what i was thinking to answer too :)
You don't get a relicense something unilaterally just because it is aderivative work! Also, "they are derivative works" and "there is noupstream" would seem to be in tension with each other.I think we need more detail on what is meant by "replications".-- Sean Whitton
|