-=| Dominique Dumont, Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 03:56:09PM +0100 |=- > Damyan Ivanov <dmn@debian.org> writes: > > > Allright. I wasn't suggesting inclusion of $whatever-icons in Padre :) > > > > I was trying to suggest some source of icons with a better licensing. > > > > And I still think it would be better if the icons are not shipped with > > Padre. I have no idea, however, for a way to have cross-platform[1] > > access to a set of icons. > > As an upstream author, I'd say we strive to write cross-platform Perl > code. To achieve this, the simplest way is to ship the icons with the > Perl distribution. As long as we are allowed legally to re-distribute the result (and it satosfies the Debian Free Software Guidelines), we are actually fine with this. (Note that the DFSG requirement rules out anything licensed under CC-SA-2.5, which is also not compatible with GPL). > To ease Debian and other packaging, upstream could set up the > distribution so it's easy to leave out the icons at Build.PL time and > refer to icons provided by the distribution. That will leave Debian > packager the burden of specifying: > - the icon location on Debian > - the actual package dependance > > Well, that's what I would propose for Config::Model GUI which > currently ships Tango icons. > > Is this workable from a Debian packager point of view ? That would be excellent! I must note here that in this case my pulling towards removing duplicate stuff is more of an aestetical matter. Duplication is certainly bad when it is about code, and not that critical at all when it is about data (depending on the size). In the Padre case, it is a matter of several .png's -- no big deal, especially if shipping them with Padre solves an actual problem (like distribution on M$ OS). Thank you for your work on this! -- dam JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature