Hi, On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 12:39 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > You're definitely *not* encouraging me to help. > Being impolite with potential external contributors does not seem to be > a good strategy...
So, do you have new icons yet? > > I don't even use BMPx, but I care about Debian abiding by its Social > Contract. That's why I spoke up and expressed my opinion on how this > bug is being dealt with. > So, do you have new icons yet? > > > > Both BMPx upstream and the author of the icons are cool with the current > > situation. > > The issue is that some icons included in the package do not comply with > the DFSG. The package is in main, so this is a serious Policy > violation. > That's an issue from Debian point of view, not necessarily from > upstream's standpoint... So, do you have new icons yet? > > You are the Debian maintainer of the package, so it's up to you to fix > the bug or else move the package to non-free. You could get help from > other people, but, as I said above, being rude does not usually > encourage people to contribute... > WRONG. Every component of bmpx is licensed under a free license. There is absolutely no bloody need to penalize it because upstream chose CC licensed icons. If it bothers you so much, find new icons. To me this is not a bug worth pursuing because being *upstream friendly* is far more important to me. Extreme positions like yours is why many upstreams are _hostile_ towards Debian, and see Debian as a bunch of people who care more about bullshit political issues than actually creating a good distro. Which is more important? Overall code quality or politics? Oh, and, do you have new icons yet? William
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
