GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 496096
gnome-themes-extras-2.20.tar.gz empty COPYING file
Last modified: 2008-03-01 13:15:32 UTC
I'm trying to package this into fedora and the licensing guidelines forbid it for inclusion without appropriate licensing. Previous versions had licenses included at the moment there is no licensing file's included.
I will fix this in next days...
Appreciate that. Can you post to bugzilla when it's done so I can update the package please.
Any further development from this?
Ping Any chance on getting this completed?
Hi there, I'm doing a downstream review of the package for Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=372161 Unfortunately lack of licensing is hampering our efforts to get this into the distribution so clarification on the licensing will really help getting this package wider distribution. Even a verbal clarification of the intent and type of the licenses (GPLv2, GPLv3) will help us go forward, but ultimately they need to be included in the package itself. Thanks.
100% GPLv2
(In reply to comment #6) > 100% GPLv2 Thanks for the clarification, is this GPLv2+ (i.e. "or any later version" which means you can choose GPLv3 if you want) or only GPLv2? Also can you add the full GPL contents to the COPYING file and make a note of the license in any source files? Thanks!
Icon themes are made by a friend of mine and iirc was GPLv2 (GPLv3 was released month later), though I'm the owner of the gtk theme (it's by me) so I can put it GPLv3, but for the moment 2 is enough
(In reply to comment #8) > Icon themes are made by a friend of mine and iirc was GPLv2 (GPLv3 was released > month later), though I'm the owner of the gtk theme (it's by me) so I can put > it GPLv3, but for the moment 2 is enough You don't need to explicitly release it under GPLv3, I was asking whether it is GPLv2+ which is what is usually done, that is it is GPLv2 or later version, which means the user can *choose* GPLv3 if they want. This is the most standard form of GPL licensing currently and is what the FSF recommend, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html and specifically: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#VersionThreeOrLater (which also applies to version 2 or later)
So to clarify,for maximum compatibility it is best if everything is licensed as "GPL version 2 or any later version" that would be the best, see line 2 in the table on: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
could you provide a patch in time for 2.22? I'm really busy ATM...
Created attachment 106140 [details] example license This is the license file it's not a patch but all that needs to happen is that you add it to your source directory. I'm not to sure whether each file needs it I'll double check.
My recommendation is to use the GPL v3 which can be copied from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
Created attachment 106247 [details] [review] License and i18n patch Attached is a patch that clarifies all used licenses in this module and also adds proper localization support to all themes. Used licenses are: GPL2, GPL2+ and CC-BY-SA
Patch applied. Thanks.
The files that are added by the patch are not in svn yet, please `svn add` them ;-)
are you sure? :)