Andrew SB wrote: > 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. >
The 1st. CC-BY-SA-3.0 The metadata in the SVGs should be stripped. It's a remnant of something that never worked. Oxygen is dual-licensed: http://www.oxygen-icons.org/?page_id=4 Jakub's build system was used but there's no "copyright" there I know of. I'm just giving attribution/props. If the Oxygen team should be in the debian/copyright then go ahead. I'm sure Ken can chime in. In the end, no Oxygen will be used. That's the plan. It was/is simply to be used as inspiration. > 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? > To my knowledge, only the base mime and bittorrent icons are. Daniel might be able to shed more light on this. > * 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) > As this is a Ubuntu project by and for it's community it will be a native package for now. > * 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?) > Nix them then. > - 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? > For me, the BZR log is the change log. This is something we gotta look at. If the BZR log can create/write the changelog. > - Ubuntu packages should close a needs-packaging bug on initial upload > Unless this is something new, I've never heard of this. I don't think it's necessary. > The licensing bit is really the most important part. I wouldn't ACK a > someone else's package on review as it is now. > Hopefully my answers help. -- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
