On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Evgeni Golov <evg...@debian.org> wrote: > */gnome-colors-3.2/debian/copyright: > + Files: Tango based icons > Copyright: PD > and > Files: GNOME based icons > Copyright: GPL-2 > is wrong: > you want to name the files > s/Copyright/License/ > for the GNOME ones you miss the copyright holders
Will fix. It's going to take some consultation with upstream though. > + I still wonder about > "All the icons were either created in Inkscape, modified from > GNOME/Tango sources, or available under a free license." from the > AUTHORS file, the last part implies there are more derivative works? > I'll investigate further with upstream. > arc-colors-1.5/debian/*.xml: > + Why are these not included into upstreams tarballs? Because they > have paths in them? > The upstream tarball doesn't have any installation system. It is simply designed to have the backgrounds added manually. The are registered when you do so. I created these xml files myself as without them the backgrounds just sit in /usr/share/backgrounds and the user would have to find and add them on their own. The xml files make them show up in the gnome-appearance-preferences > backgrounds tab automatically on installation. > arc-colors-1.5/Sources: > + Run > "grep -r home . |sed -e 's,.*/home/,,;s,/.*,,' |sort -u" > It will tell you, that there are four people who did the stuff? > But you list only Victor in copyright. > Again, I'll investigate further with upstream. > gnome-colors: > + The same is fun in gnome-colors (when you unpack the tarballs) :( > + grep -ri licen gnome-*/* |grep -vi "GPL/2.0" |grep -vi "cc:license" > is interesting too, it lists LGPL and CC-BY-SA-2.0 and 2.5 too. > And also CC-BY-NC-3.0 too - this is non-free! :( > I think this is an unfortunate by product of the re-licensing of Tango from a mess of mostly variations of CC licenses to public domain. This happened after the original creation of gnome-colors, so any svg files edited from old Tango sources probably retained their old licensing info in the headers. Again, I'll have to work with upstream on all this... > So besides of the copyright/licensing stuff, the packaging is good and > can be uploaded as soon you fix these :) [I know, collecting copyright > info is painfull, but if we wouldn't do that, we'd still use Windows ;)] > I have a more general question on debian/copyright. Obviously all of the above needs to be resolved, but upstream has mentioned in the past that they are simply interested in having a free license and are not tied to GPL-3. So I wonder if they were to relicense as GPL-2 if "Files: *" would then be acceptable as their original work and icons coming from gnome would both be GPL-2 and icons coming from tango are in the public domain, explicitly giving up copyright and including the following in the dedication: | Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work | may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, | built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial | or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not | yet been invented or conceived. Does that imply they can be relicensed? Thanks so much for the review! - Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
