mose wrote: > The readme included in the zip says : > "This font was made by The Font Farm, it's free to use."
This is very incomplete. It doesn't say what "free" means (free as beer, but perhaps not free to distribute?), and doesn't specify "use". I can imagine that "use" would not normally include "redistribute", and anyway it would be better to know for sure. Please ask him to place it under a proper free license (preferably one of the standard licenses such as BSD, LGPL or whatever). It's sufficient if he places the license statement on the download page, if he doesn't want to make a new zip file. > - tikiwiki developers made a lot of efforts to enforce LGPL compatibility > of all code included in first versions of Tikiwiki. Good. We should still collect all the copyright notices (with author and year) and license statements into debian/copyright. This will take some time, but on the other hand it's not considered a RC bug to leave it out for the time being (very few packages have 100% complete copyright information in there). > For example, who can say who is the copyright holder for img/icons/clear.gif > and what are its > conditions of use ? Well, the one who committed it to CVS should definitely have checked, and documented, if an icon is covered by copyright. If someone just took a bunch of icons off the web and stuffed them in the CVS without checking copyright, then we may have a problem. Marcus (removed [EMAIL PROTECTED] from CC) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
