[xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#631273: DFSG issue

[Nicholas Bamber]

Kete,
	I almost got as far as raising an RFP but got  a bit stuck.

	The image I used as the Debian logo came from
http://www.debian.org/logos/index.en.html#official-use . Now I look at
it again I think we would be better off reversing the red and white and
making the colour of the banner match the red. BTW note very carefully
the licenses on that page. Not all the the Debian logos on that page
pass the Debian requirements for freeness.

	The same would probably work for w3c-linkchecker which I also control.
So there are at least two packages that would use it.

	However I have another problem. I would really like to fix #445265,
#627962, #614598. The first bug makes your issue more urgent - probably
raising it a severity level. The other two are a problem because the
common package would need to include the Apache config fragments -
compounding the problem of webserver independence.

	Another problem is that I really promised myself I would concentrate on
maradns and pkg-components for the next few months.

	Possible places to consider discussing this are the debian-devel and
debian-web-apps mailing lists. However with the former I suspect you are
likely to be either ignored or flamed. The latter I think is pretty dead.
	

On 26/06/11 03:36, Kete wrote:
> I could write up a well-phrased question and post it on Identica, Debian
> user forums, IRC and maybe a mailing list or the like. I did mention
> this package a little over a month ago, and one person from Argentina
> marked it as a post they liked https://identi.ca/javier/favorites
> 
> 
> On 06/25/2011 01:46 PM, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
>> Do you think you could see if there is any interest in a native, Debian
>> branding web resources package.
>>
>> On 25/06/11 02:52, Kete wrote:
>>> Nicholas:
>>> Okay, I didn't know the purpose of the JavaScript, but I can respect the
>>> promotional request for donations. Actually, if I had thought to
>>> investigate the location of the script, I probably could have easily
>>> noticed that it was for donations. The reason why I wanted to do make
>>> these changes was to make the package independent and functional without
>>> these W3C-hosted JavaScript, favicon, and any other logos or small
>>> icons. I didn't think your logo was a bad idea. I wanted it to be
>>> contained on my computer. That's important to me and something that I
>>> value, but if that's still unclear, then I guess it's just not a
>>> downstream value (not that that's bad or that I'm right). I'm not sureDo
>>> how I'm second-guessing what the user wants and what this has to do with
>>> someone fixing the design themselves. That argument /does/ mean a lot to
>>> me. Like I said, I could have done that myself, but I imagined that
>>> future releases would undo my changes. Actually, I've been changing my
>>> PHP manual files and didn't think about that, so I hope that doesn't
>>> happen to those. If it does, I should have downloaded PHP's manual
>>> instead of installing Debian's package and likewise with Debian's
>>> manuals if I ever get around to those. I'm not against a separate
>>> package.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kete
>>>
>>> On 06/24/2011 08:44 PM, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
>>>> Kete,
>>>>
>>>>      Well I think you should think through the pros and cons of this
>>>> a bit
>>>> more. That is not to say there would no be advantages - especially for
>>>> SSL users.
>>>>
>>>>      The external resources I can think of are:
>>>>
>>>> 1.) The favicon - not released
>>>> 2.) The logo - I supplied one based upon the Debian logo but it is
>>>> amateurish.
>>>> 3.) small icons - these are supplied by upstream but have a non-DFSG
>>>> license.
>>>> 4.) The javascript encouraging donations and providing some ads.
>>>>
>>>> The advantages are all fairly technical and straightfoward. The
>>>> disadvantages are somewhat more abstract.
>>>>
>>>> 1.) It requires work to do what you are proposing.
>>>> 2.) In principle someone who is dissatisfied with the design could fix
>>>> that. Maybe that argument does not do a lot for you but it is core to
>>>> Debian's values.
>>>> 3.) It requires that we second-guess what the user wants.
>>>> 4.) We are taking it ever further away from what upstream provided
>>>> without a clear reason.
>>>> 5.) I personally feel slightly awkward about turning off the
>>>> promotional
>>>> stuff put there by the W3C, though to do so would clearly be legal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It might be somewhat more worthwhile if your proposed resources were in
>>>> a separate package, which could be used by other web applications.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25/06/11 00:01, Kete wrote:
>>>>> I don't mind doing a favicon. Would I have to write a JavaScript
>>>>> script?
>>>>> Is there anything else?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/24/2011 12:59 PM, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
>>>>>> tag 631273 +wontfix
>>>>>> severity 631273 wishlist
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kete,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       This has already been dealt with in another bug report - and
>>>>>> shortly
>>>>>> the two reports will be merged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       The issue is that those icons are under a license which
>>>>>> prevents
>>>>>> modification of the icons. Debian considers that to be a non-free
>>>>>> restriction. So if we included those icons the package would have
>>>>>> to go
>>>>>> into the non-free section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       The piece of javascript you refer to handles the the
>>>>>> sponsorship
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> project. Quite reasonably W3C do not provide that in their source
>>>>>> bundle, so I doubt it is even licensed for distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       We certainly could patch out the off site resources so long
>>>>>> as we
>>>>>> replace them with stuff we have done ourselves. However I really
>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>> see that this would be worthwhile - unless you want to volunteer of
>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Nicholas Bamber | http://www.periapt.co.uk/
PGP key 3BFFE73C from pgp.mit.edu