Re: ITS: arc-colors, gnome-colors, shiki-colors are ready
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Benjamin Drung <benjamin.drung@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 04.06.2009, 13:18 +0200 schrieb Evgeni Golov:
>> + Do you have years of copyright for the other contributors?
>
> They are copied from gnome-icon-theme. I will add 2002-2008 to all of
> them.
I actually email the upstream maintainers for gnome-icon-theme about
this issue. It seems that Benjamin was dropped from the CC in their
reply. Essentially, we'd have to dig through the VCS for the years,
although some might have the year in the SVG metadata. Rodney Dawes
wrote:
"you'll have to look at the revision control history to determine
years, though the committer name may not necessarily be who authored
the file. However, the theme is also being re-done in all high-res
SVG, and so at some point, all this should be much clearer."
I suppose the real question is whether or not including the copyright
year is a MUST or SHOULD. As Benjamin notes, gnome-icon-theme is
already in Debian and does not include the years in their
debian/copyright.
>
>> And maybe you can list the files copyrighted by them? As they do not
>> have copyright over ALL files as listed at the moment.
>
> I do not know if it is possible. Victor, do you know, which files are
> based on gnome-icon-theme files?
>
This would be best, but as the icons are mixed (some used directly
while others are modified) it could be troublesome. The way we've done
it for now seems to be very common through out Debian and upstream
packages. Many packages list copyright holders that don't have
copyright for every file all together if they use the same license.
Just one example off the top of my head is awn-extra-applets. I'm
listed in a bulk Copyright list, but I'm only the author of one applet
out of many.
>> + Files: Tango based icons, can you list them? Files: should be a
>> shell-glob/regular expression/whatever (*machine* readable :))
>
> Same again. Victor, can you list them?
>
Again, that would be best. But if this proves problematic, would
simply removing this section be acceptable, since putting them in the
public domain explicitly gives up copyright? Implying that we are
relicensing them in Debian?
>> Besides of these, I'm fine with an upload. So waiting for your fixes :)
Thanks so much for the review!
(I hope I don't come off like I'm complaining, just trying to
navigated the sometimes subjective world of the debian/copyright
file.)
- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
Reply to: