On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Cory K.<[email protected]> wrote: > So what's your next move? Do you wanna try to go for a 0.44 upload to > REVU or does kwwii wanna take this on? (as we've chatted before about > it. just had to give him the go. GO!) :P
Well, there's some work that probably needs to get done before it will get accepted. * License Review: - COPYING (and debian/copyright) claim CC-BY-SA-3.0 while svg metadata says CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 - Which is right? - Are NC license "non-free"? - Jakub Steiner listed in svg metadata, but not AUTHORS (and debian/copyright) - Oxygen team is in AUTHORS but not debian/copyright. I know in Debian, even though they now accept CC-3.0, NC is considered "non-free." I can't seem to find a clear statement on whether it's acceptable in Ubuntu Universe, but my feeling is that it is not. >From the Debian Free Software Guidlines FAQ: (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html) "Q: Can I say "You must not use the program for commercial purposes"? A: This is non-free. We want businesses to be able to use Debian for their computing needs. A business should be able to use any program in Debian without checking its license." Anyone seen a definitive Ubuntu policy statement on this? Again, my inclination is that the license is "non-free." If someone wanted to roll a commercial Ubuntu derivative, in theory they should be able to redistribute anything in Universe with no problem. I'm also still a bit unclear on if there are any actual Oxygen bits in there. Is it safe to add a note to AUTHORS saying that it's simply inspired by Oxygen, does the Oxygen team hold the copyright on anything in the theme? * Native package or not? - I think that it shouldn't be a native package. + Pros and Cons: - In a native package, the versioning of the source package and the debian package are identical. This gets problematic when doing things like making a packaging bug fix upload to Ubuntu only. The version number will be bumped, even though there hasn't actually been an upstream release and the only changes are in the debian dir. - Would mean making a tarball release along with the drag-and-drop release. - Most Ubuntu artwork packages are native packages, but while Breathe is designed with Ubuntu in mind there's nothing stopping other distros from shipping it. Either way, it's not really a big deal. I just think that it shouldn't technically be a native package. (To the uninitiated, simply should the Ubuntu version be 0.44 or 0.44-0ubuntu1) * Other trivial bits (ie not very important, but worth fixing). - Since Ken changed the build system, the INSTALL file doesn't actually apply anymore - NEWS and README are empty files (remove or write something?) - No upstream changelog (running the following before releasing will create a GNU style changelog based on the bzr commits: "bzr log -v --gnu-changelog > ChangeLog") Do we care or need it? - Ubuntu packages should close a needs-packaging bug on initial upload The licensing bit is really the most important part. I wouldn't ACK a someone else's package on review as it is now. - Andrew -- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
