Your message dated Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:39:19 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#763067: Licensing issue on images
files
has caused the Debian Bug report #763067,
regarding Licensing issue on images files
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
763067: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=763067
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: xfce4-power-manager-data
Version: 1.2.0-5
Severity: important
Hi,
while preparing my packaging of Tails' OpenPGP Applet (ITP #756404), it was
pointed to me that there were issues on images files shipped with it : they
where licensed using CC-BY-SA 2.0, which is not DFSG-compliant. They seemed
indeed derived from icons using an old tango theme, which were indeed licensed
CC-BY-SA 2.0 at the time.
I saw that on my Sid system, several packages have the same issue :
~$ rgrep -rl 'by-sa/2\.0' /usr/share/icons/*/scalable |xargs dlocate
--package-only
gitg
network-manager-gnome
soundconverter
thunar-volman
xfburn
xfce4-battery-plugin
xfce4-fsguard-plugin
xfce4-power-manager-data
There may be more, since it only reports the packages I have installed.
It doesn't seem to be dual-licensing, judging from the content of the svg files
involved.
So, I asked on debian-devel but received very few responses, mostly
inconclusives or saying we should allow CC-BY-SA 2.0 in debian [1] [2]
This is not an issue in the package I work on anymore, since I could remake the
icons and include them upstream. However, I think it's best to track this issue
and maybe clarify once and for all what to do with CC-BY-SA 2.0 images.
Currently, I see the following options :
- convincing upstream to relicense the files using a later (>= 3.0) version of
the license, which, as I found out, can be difficult
- removing or replacing the files
- decide that CC-BY-SA 2.0 is OK after all.
Cheers,
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/08/msg00073.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/09/msg00725.html
--
Clement Hermann (nodens)
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 3.16-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
xfce4-power-manager-data depends on no packages.
Versions of packages xfce4-power-manager-data recommends:
ii librsvg2-common 2.40.4-1
ii xfce4-power-manager 1.2.0-5
xfce4-power-manager-data suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
version: 1.3.0-1
On sam., 2014-09-27 at 18:01 +0200, Clément Hermann wrote:
> Package: xfce4-power-manager-data
> Version: 1.2.0-5
> Severity: important
This one seems fixed in 1.4.0, so marking as such.
--
Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Pkg-xfce-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-xfce-devel
