[ubuntu-art] Breathe PPA

[Kenneth Wimer]

On Tuesday 30 June 2009 10:31:00 Cory K. wrote:
> Andrew SB wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Cory K.<coryisatm at gmail.com> 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

You need to at least continue the copyright that Jakub expresses for the 
purposes he expressed it (ie, don't remove any of the copyright notices which 
attribute his work to him). If there are oxygen icons or parts of oxygen icons 
being used (or even if there is a very strong similarity in design or style) 
you should include the names of the authors in the AUTHORS file as well as 
attributing the correct licence.

It seems to me, just by reading this and not getting into it very deep that 
you do not need to include the oxygen list (and if it turned out that you did, 
I am sure I would ask nicely first :p)

> 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.

Well, Jakub still has the copyright on the code he wrote for the build system.

> > 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-art/attachments/20090630/9f6d53f6/attachment.htm