Mon May 11 02:30:56 BST 2009
"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.
More information about the ubuntu-art