Hi Stuart, Stuart Prescott wrote (26 Jan 2013 02:24:55 GMT) : > The attached patch adds appropriate acknowledgement of the > developers of the oxygen icon theme to d/copyright. That part is > clearly a bug and needs fixing.
Excellent, thanks! >+The directory share/keepassx/icons directory contains icons from the Oxygen >+Icon theme: It may be my suboptimal English, but I understand this sentence in a way that it says that all files in that directory come from Oxygen, and are all subject to the copyright and license information, which is still not clear (see clientic.png bellow). Perhaps the files that come from Oxygen for sure should be explicitly listed? > As for the rest of the complaints about the sources for the icons Oops. My bug report was really about "icons license and copyright information is missing", and that's all: I intended to look further into the missing preferred form of modification complain, before reporting it to Debian if I found it was right. I'm sorry for the confusion and all: I should simply not have quoted the part about "preferred form for modification" of Robert's message. > The last remaining problematic image is: > ./share/keepassx/icons/clientic.png > We know nothing about this image and it contains no metadata. At first glance, it *looks like* clientic.png contains smaller versions of at least a few Oxygen icons that are also present in bigger form in the tarball: clock.png, dbsettings.png, delete.png, help_about.png. I also see something that looks very much like the Wikipedia logo. I'm not accusing anyone of anything here, but I *fear* clientic.png is some kind of ressources file, assembled from images coming from various sources, that might have various copyright and license, to its overall license (if considered as a source file in preferred form of modification) might be hard to clarify. But I'm fine with taking upstream's word that it was constructed from scratch through pixel editing if they say so. I'm going to ask them. While I'm at it, I'll also ask them about some other files that I've not found in Oxygen, such as exit.png and text_left.png. > Why does the bug reporter assume that this image was not constructed > in a pixel editing program by someone with some artistic skill? I've no idea why Robert assumed this. If the question was not rhetorical, then I suggest asking him directly :) > I think we would do better to take upstreams at their word that they are > giving us the sources for icons in png format rather than to accuse them of > either maliciously or incompetently withholding the source files, > particularly > when one of the upstream developers is a DD and so more aware of these issues > than average. I'm happy to be proved wrong on any individual case here Well, I obviously can't speak for Robert here, and I'm not sure what I would have done myself, but I can easily understand that, once one has found a few dozens files copied from another source, without proper copyright and license information, in a given upstream tarball, one might feel in a slightly less "blindly trusting" mood, and then go as far as questioning if a file like clientic.png is really shipped in its preferred form of modification. I can also fully understand how one may get annoyed by quick'n'easy grave accusations, that look very much like unbacked assumptions, expressed as RC bugs. > but perhaps the simple questions should be asked of upstream first > rather than filing release critical bugs without fact checking. I believe the bug I have filed (about missing "icons license and copyright information") *is* RC. Again, I'm sorry about the confusion induced by my overlarge quoting a sentence, whose end was outside of the scope of the issue I was reporting. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
