Bug#659632: graphite-web
Looking at the two rejections * webapp/content/js/ext/examples/shared/icons/fam/* are licensed under CC-BY-3.0 * webapp/content/js/ext/resources/*.swf lack corresponding source code. and dealing with the flash issue first. Without knowing in detail how central the .swf files are to functionality, if they are just examples, then can they not simply be removed before the upload to Debian? The fam icons thing - I am not sure that is a genuine rejection. If it was an earlier CC BY license then that would be a problem, but reading the DFSGLicenses page suggests the newer version 3.0 might be okay. http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Creative_Commons_Attribution_Share-Alike_.28CC-BY-SA.29_v3.0 There is some clarification by Torsten Werner in the link to lists.debian.org on that wiki page, and it may not be much to follow that up with the ftp folks to check the rejection of the fam icons is genuine or otherwise. Gary. Quoting from page at: http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/ The icons can also be used under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (Hi Debian folks!) with the following requirements: As an author, I would appreciate a reference to my authorship of the Silk icon set contents within a readme file or equivalent documentation for the software which includes the set or a subset of the icons contained within. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#659632: graphite-web
Hello, Looking at the two rejections * webapp/content/js/ext/examples/shared/icons/fam/* are licensed under CC-BY-3.0 * webapp/content/js/ext/resources/*.swf lack corresponding source code. and dealing with the flash issue first. Without knowing in detail how central the .swf files are to functionality, if they are just examples, then can they not simply be removed before the upload to Debian? The fam icons thing - I am not sure that is a genuine rejection. If it was an earlier CC BY license then that would be a problem, but reading the DFSGLicenses page suggests the newer version 3.0 might be okay. http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Creative_Commons_Attribution_Share-Alike_.28CC-BY-SA.29_v3.0 please see http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-graphite/packages/graphite-web.git;a=summary I have removed the flash and fam icons from debian tarball. So we don't need the copyright. So packages are ready, waiting to upload from an dd. Greets, Jonas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#659632: graphite-web
Hello, So apparently graphite-web is not in NEW right now. It's also not in the archive. Is this intentional? graphite-web was rejected on Sunday from archive: * webapp/content/js/ext/examples/shared/icons/fam/* are licensed under CC-BY-3.0 * webapp/content/js/ext/resources/*.swf lack corresponding source code. d/copyright and the dfsg tarball needs to be reworked. Greets, Jonas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#659632: graphite-web
Hey, So apparently graphite-web is not in NEW right now. It's also not in the archive. Is this intentional? Thanks, Christian -- Christian Hofstaedtler | design, deploy, scale http://christian.hofstaedtler.name/ | phone +43 720 699846 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
