On Sat, 20 May 2006 13:20:51 -0400 Andrew Moise wrote: > I know I sound like a pain in the ass, but the new copyright file > still doesn't list detailed copyright and upstream information.
I agree that this should be fixed. > Also, > the GPL is a bad license to apply to images, because it requires > source distribution (photoshop or whatever), not just free > distribution of the final product. For that reason, I'd been asking > people about MIT licensing, which everyone I contacted was willing to > provide. I don't agree. The GPL is *not* a bad license for images: forcing source distribution is a feature, not a bug. I'm not against non-copyleft licenses, but providing source has to be done anyway in order to call a work DFSG-free. Hence Debian should provide source even if the images were under a MIT license. > Read > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg00007.html > for information about what you need to include in the debian/copyright > file. You might also want to refer to this message by Joerg Jaspert, for further details on how to properly write debian/copyright files: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpxzbHoJF5yW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
