Re: RFS: xxxterm
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Luis Henriques wrote:
> Sorry, but I don't think that's an option upstream will take. For
> example, the default homepage of the upstream version is a website of a
> company. One of the patches changes this to a blank page and has been
> discarded by upstream.
...
> I can add a patch to do this, but again I don't think upstream would be
> interested. Their target OS is OpenBSD; and they have discarded similar
> patches before (for example, the one to change the resources directory).
...
> You'll see that upstream reply to a similar question is: "cvs has a
> built-in changelog". Thus, I guess they would give me a similar answer.
...
> I have discussed this already with Kilian Krause and Benoit Knecht, and
> also with the upstream authors.
>
> So, based on information provided by upstream, these icons were created by
> them (upstreams) and the license is CC BY. I do have (personal) emails
> discussing this with upstreams, but obviously I have no evidences of any of
> this.
>
> Package has been built with the assumption that information provided by
> upstreams is correct. Anyway, I'm OK to just drop these icons or replace
> them by some other icons already shipped with Debian.
>
> Is this enough for you to accept these icons as they are?
Given the attitudes displayed by upstream wrt your patches I'm
unlikely to use this software, let alone sponsor it so my opinion is
irrelevant here.
> What about the name, is it appropriate for a web browser? :-)
I have no opinion on that.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: