Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Licensing unclarities #46

Closed
matthijskooijman opened this issue Nov 23, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed

Licensing unclarities #46

matthijskooijman opened this issue Nov 23, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@matthijskooijman
Copy link
Contributor

matthijskooijman commented Nov 23, 2021

I'm in the process of updating the Debian package for OpenSFX. With all the new licenses on the sounds, I should be able to upload the package to Debian's main archive, rather than non-free, which is awesome.

However, the Debian copyright file needs fairly specific machine-readable copyright and licensing information. Most of that seems to present in src/opensfx.psfo, but I'm seeing some minor inconsistencies. In particular:

  • Most files are listed as Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported, but some (osfx_42.wav and osfx_43.wav) have Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. Since no port is specified explicitly, I'm assuming these two are also the unported versions (I checked the original files too, which also have no port specified, or are cc zero). Maybe good to add "Unported" to these files too?
  • The README only mentions CC-BY-SA 3.0 unported for the sound files (and GPL for the code), but opensfx.psfo also mentions CC-BY and CC-0. It seems the README is incomplete here, or is the idea that even though some separate sound files have more permissive licenses, the collection as a whole is licensed under the more restrictive CC-BY-SA (which is allowed AFAICS).
  • docs/license.txt only has CC-BY-SA, not CC-BY or CC-0, but I guess that's the same thing as the previous point.
  • docs/license.txt contains CDDL (and readme only mentions it), but I cannot find anywhere what it is used for. Is it still relevant?
@matthijskooijman
Copy link
Contributor Author

docs/license.txt contains CDDL (and readme only mentions it), but I cannot find anywhere what it is used for. Is it still relevant?

Oh, scratch that, I didn't read properly, the README quite clearly states the code is dual licensed under GPL2+ and CDDL.

@Wuzzy2
Copy link
Contributor

Wuzzy2 commented Nov 24, 2021

I have addressed the first 2 points in #48.

As for CC-BY and CC0 missing in license.txt … Well, there's also a link in README at the bottom but I don't know if this is enough.

@matthijskooijman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Cool, thanks!

As for CC-BY and CC0 missing in license.txt … Well, there's also a link in README at the bottom but I don't know if this is enough.

With the clarifications in #48, I think it is enough with just the links in the README.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants