severity 385115 grave thanks I'm sorry, but AFAIK, distributing illegal data should be release critical. We are not talking about non-free data, we are talking about ripped (or "pirated", if you prefer), undistributable data, which is much worse. Please read below.
On 8/29/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The copyright file claims that these files "come from" http://www.reptilelabour.com/software/chromium/ and are available under the
OK, my English is very bad, but I am under the impression that you haven't read my message nor made any attempt to understand it. Yes, I know the copyright file claims that files came from http://www.reptilelabour.com/software/chromium/, but my point is that the same page you cited claims that some files come from the urls that I've mentioned on my email. This is a quotation taken from about page: "Music Loops and raw Sound Effects from: Partners in Rhyme FindSounds.com"
terms of the Artistic License. If you determine that *specific* files are covered by a different copyright than the one claimed in debian/copyright,
The copyright does not belong to the author of the program. He can't publish them under the artistic license. Look at the strings of some files: strings /usr/share/games/chromium/wav/power.wav | grep Copyright Copyright (C) 1995 Corel Corporation Limited. All Rights Reserved And this is a quote from one on the pages the files were downloaded (findsounds.com): "When you perform a search using FindSounds.com or the WebPalette feature of FindSounds Palette, you obtain links to audio files hosted by Web sites throughout the world. The sounds in these audio files may be copyrighted and their use governed by national and international copyright laws. We do not offer advice on the fair use of these files." So they are downloaded from unkown places.
or under a license other than the Artistic License, please re-raise the severity. Otherwise, simple second-guessing of the statements in the copyright file doesn't seem to be a reason for a release-critical bug.
I don't need to prove anything. It is only your assumption that the files are under the artistic license, because this is not what the author of the program claims. Under this conditions you should verify that they are under the Artistic license, instead of me that they are not. Saying that the files are free because they are downloaded from the same page as the program is not enough, because upstream recognizes that he has not made some of them. It should be clarified by upstream files made by him and files that are not. I also want etch to be released in time, but allowing this is unacceptable to me. Do you really think it is OK to release the package in this state? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
