fortune-mod-gentoo-dev-20090306 fortune-mod-gentoo-forums-20041207 I guess these used to be funny, but with their last update more than 10 years ago, these packages are pointless. Please update or treeclean.
More than 3 months have passed, without any reply from maintainers. CCing treecleaners. LICENSE="GPL-2" is also strange. Are we sure that we can distribute e.g. the forums posts under this license?
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=62391cfbff729a3fb94513ab59219b82309d73c2 commit 62391cfbff729a3fb94513ab59219b82309d73c2 Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2019-12-01 20:56:00 +0000 Commit: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2019-12-01 20:59:56 +0000 package.mask: Last rite games-misc/fortune-mod-gentoo-dev, games-misc/fortune-mod-gentoo-forums Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/691084 Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> profiles/package.mask | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
I'm not the maintainer of games-misc/fortune-mod-gentoo-forums, but I am the upstream of games-misc/fortune-mod-gentoo-dev. I'd have appreciated these being filed as seperate bugs, as I was looking for bugs assigned to me, not randomly CC'd. The tarball contains: 1. tooling to generate fortune format 2. piles of quotes of people's text The tooling is clearly code, is licensed GPL-2. The tarball (and upstream repo) does not make claim any right over the text presently. There's a few different copyrights to look at for the text. A) each individual for their own words B) the transformative copyright in assembling the collection C) the collection as a database (applicable to some jurisdictions only) I cite fair use to copy from my own IRC logs and those submitted to me, and I believe that is reasonable for each individual's quote. ulm: Where do you think I should add the GPL-2 COPYING file to make it clear that I wish to claim that for the transformative nature of the collection. A similar project is here, including a perl one-liner to convert from the wiki format into Fortune files https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/Quotes
(In reply to Robin Johnson from comment #3) > I'm not the maintainer of games-misc/fortune-mod-gentoo-forums, but I am the > upstream of games-misc/fortune-mod-gentoo-dev. I'd have appreciated these > being filed as seperate bugs, as I was looking for bugs assigned to me, not > randomly CC'd. Sorry. I had filed these in one bug, because these are similar packages with similar issues, and both are at least co-maintained by the games project. I have split it into separate bugs now. Let's keep this one for fortune-mod-gentoo-dev; bug 701732 is for fortune-mod-gentoo-forums. I am going to answer the license question later.
(In reply to Robin Johnson from comment #3) > The tarball contains: > 1. tooling to generate fortune format > 2. piles of quotes of people's text > > The tooling is clearly code, is licensed GPL-2. That seems to be clear. > The tarball (and upstream repo) does not make claim any right over the text > presently. > > There's a few different copyrights to look at for the text. > A) each individual for their own words I doubt that a raw IRC log would even qualify as a "work" that is copyrightable. Much less so for a snippet of a few lines. There may be other rights involved like personal rights (so if anyone asked you to remove their quote, my guess would be that you'd have to comply). > B) the transformative copyright in assembling the collection Yes, I believe you can claim copyright for this. > C) the collection as a database (applicable to some jurisdictions only) Presumably that doesn't apply here? The EU directive grants sui-generis database rights only for databases assembled by a citizen of an EU member state, or a corporation located in a member state. > I cite fair use to copy from my own IRC logs and those submitted to me, and > I believe that is reasonable for each individual's quote. I think you don't even need to cite fair use, because the original log isn't copyrightable, in the first place. > ulm: > Where do you think I should add the GPL-2 COPYING file to make it clear that > I wish to claim that for the transformative nature of the collection. I'd mention in the README file that GPL-2 applies to the tooling, and that you distribute the collection under it. Disclaimer: IANAL, TINLA.
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #5) > (In reply to Robin Johnson from comment #3) > > The tarball (and upstream repo) does not make claim any right over the text > > presently. > > > > There's a few different copyrights to look at for the text. > > A) each individual for their own words > > I doubt that a raw IRC log would even qualify as a "work" that is > copyrightable. Much less so for a snippet of a few lines. Quotes can be copyright, at least under US law, as long as they are memorable. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/09/09/copyright_protection_for_short/ covers it in reasonable depth. > There may be other rights involved like personal rights (so if anyone asked > you to remove their quote, my guess would be that you'd have to comply). Yes, I specified copyrights, not other rights. I'm wondering about ditching the entire offensive section anyway. > > B) the transformative copyright in assembling the collection > Yes, I believe you can claim copyright for this. Is it reasonable to use GPL-2 for this claim, or should a different license be required? > > C) the collection as a database (applicable to some jurisdictions only) > Presumably that doesn't apply here? The EU directive grants sui-generis > database rights only for databases assembled by a citizen of an EU member > state, or a corporation located in a member state. If I was a EU citizen then I could have claimed this. I suspect it might be more applicable to other fortune-mod packages. > > I cite fair use to copy from my own IRC logs and those submitted to me, and > > I believe that is reasonable for each individual's quote. > I think you don't even need to cite fair use, because the original log isn't > copyrightable, in the first place. That's murky, and I'd take the safer side now that individuals might be able to copyright their words in at least some jurisdiction.
(In reply to Robin Johnson from comment #6) > (In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #5) > > I doubt that a raw IRC log would even qualify as a "work" that is > > copyrightable. Much less so for a snippet of a few lines. > Quotes can be copyright, at least under US law, as long as they are > memorable. > https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/09/09/copyright_protection_for_short/ > covers it in reasonable depth. The question is if that would apply to IRC logs? "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, [...]" (17 U.S. Code § 102) The log is fixed in a medium, but it's you who did the recording (assuming these are your own logs). Then again, the answer may be different depending on local jurisdiction. I doubt that an IRC log would reach the threshold of originality ("Schöpfungshöhe") in Germany. > > > B) the transformative copyright in assembling the collection > > Yes, I believe you can claim copyright for this. > Is it reasonable to use GPL-2 for this claim, or should a different license > be required? If it would turn out that the single quotes are copyrighted by their respective authors and you need to refer to "fair use", then I doubt that this would be compatible with the conditions of the GPL-2. Maybe CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are better suited, as long as you make it clear that you claim copyright only for selection/arrangement of the quotes? > > I think you don't even need to cite fair use, because the original log isn't > > copyrightable, in the first place. > That's murky, and I'd take the safer side now that individuals might be able > to copyright their words in at least some jurisdiction. Yes, but then you have the problem that some jurisdictions don't know the concept of "fair use". So, the material may not be distributable at all without explicit permission of these individuals. We are in muddy waters here. :/
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #7) > The log is fixed in a medium, but it's you who did the recording (assuming > these are your own logs). Without getting into other points, I'd like to point out that I don't think it matters *who* did the recording. After all, if you record a movie played in a cinema, or photograph a book it's still protected by the original copyright. Or taking a more direct example, if you record me reading a book, my words still carry the original copyright. Following this logic, an IRC conversation recorded by you would still carry the original copyright (if any).
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #8) > Without getting into other points, I'd like to point out that I don't think > it matters *who* did the recording. After all, if you record a movie played > in a cinema, or photograph a book it's still protected by the original > copyright. Or taking a more direct example, if you record me reading a > book, my words still carry the original copyright. Following this logic, an > IRC conversation recorded by you would still carry the original copyright > (if any). These cases aren't comparable. The movie and the book existed in a medium before the recording, and are already protected by copyright. The IRC conversation doesn't exist in a tangible medium before the log is recorded (unless someone would paste texts taken from somewhere else, but that's not what we are discussing here).
commit 04af897b8b3542fac03502a72575a737227792a0 Author: Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> Date: Sat Jan 4 23:02:25 2020 -0500 games-misc/*: drop last-rited pkg Signed-off-by: Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org>
