Re: RFS: arc-colors, gnome-colors, shiki-colors
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Evgeni Golov <evgeni@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
Reply to: