On mar., 2010-12-21 at 19:07 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:39:31 +0100 Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > > I'm gonna upload a new desktop-base today, fixing the various RC bugs > > still around. > > > > If you have something to include there, please say so *now*, I won't be > > able to work on it of the next few days. > > I understand your lack of time and I sympathize with you: I am often in > a similar situation of spare time scarcity. > However, time constraints should not be a reason to fix bugs in an > incomplete manner: I will try hard to provide as much help as I > possibly can during this evening, but this bug report should not be > considered as closed, until all the issues are properly dealt with (of > course). Sure. It won't be closed if not everything is solved. But I won't lose more time on this. > > > > > Check the svn and report back (preferably with patch) if you think > > something is missing. > > > > Especially, Josselin, if you could take care of the gnome-debian-sid > > artwork (either clarify the license or drop it completely), and > > Francesco if you could find out the various licensing issues you noted > > which remain? > > What follows is a summary of the remaining issues in Rev 238 > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debian-desktop/packages/trunk/desktop-base/?rev=238&sc=1 > as far as I can tell: > > > * there does not seem to be any clear copyright notice > (with years and copyright holders) and license for > debian-security.xcf, which is derived from the DOUL > (as correctly documented) and from a GNOME icon > (under which license?!?) > > N.B.: Yves-Alexis Perez said that he would ping initial author to get > some information. > Ulrich Hansen provided additional information, but the copyright > notice and license for the GNOME lock-button is still to be found. > Now that I think of it: even the license for the resulting > debian-security.xcf is yet to be specified... > > N.B.: an alternative approach could be to create a new > debian-security.png from scratch, as I mentioned previously in > http://bugs.debian.org/607458#65 That or I'll drop it completely. > > > * we still have to find out the copyright and license for the GNOME > foot logo > > N.B.: it seems that the GNOME foot Logo is released under the terms > of the LGPL v2.1 or later; at least that's what is stated on > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gnomelogo.svg&oldid=39892275 > However, I would like to find more official information about the > license; moreover, I still cannot find a proper copyright notice... > > > * we still have to find out the copyright and license for the KDE logo > > N.B.: the KDE Official Oxygen Logo seems to be released under the terms > of the LGPL v2.1 or later, see http://www.kde.org/stuff/clipart.php and > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:KDE_logo.svg&oldid=43994097 > I would like to find more official statement about the LGPL version > and about the proper copyright notice... > > > I will try and prepare a patch for the debian/copyright (against Rev > 238) later this evening (hopefully), so stay tuned! > > Thanks. Note that I won't be able to upload post midnight (CET) or so. Regards, -- Yves-Alexis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part