[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#607458: desktop-base 6.0.4 upload

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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: