[DRE-maint] Comments regarding webgen_1.7.2-1_amd64.changes

[Daniel Leidert]

Am Mittwoch, dem 19.05.2021 um 00:21 +0200 schrieb Klaumi Klingsporn:
> Am / On Tue, 18 May 2021 19:29:58 +0000
> schrieb / wrote Sean Whitton
> <ftpmaster at ftp-master.debian.org>:
> 
> > One of our trainees asks: "Some of the png file seem to
> > have been generated using Inkscape. Maybe the source
> > files could be packaged along with the rendered png
> > files?"
> > 
> > Indeed -- if the files have not been lost to the mists of
> > time they need to be in d/missing-sources.  Are they
> > available?
> 
> The png-files were last changed 12 years ago. In the github
> repository of webgen (https://github.com/gettalong/webgen)
> there is an additional directory 'misc' which is not part
> of the rubygem-package and which in former times contained
> the documentation of the webgen. There you can find a
> logo.svg (created around 2000 with sodipodi!) which
> corresponds to the generated_by_webgen.png and as a part
> also contains the image of logo.png. Should we add this? Or
> only add the uri to d/missing-sources?

I also found that webgen's Git tree has a scalable vector graphics of the logo.
However, I disagree that it is mandatory to be provided with the source as it
seems to be requested by the FTP masters here. Probably every image shipped
with any of the sources in Debian has some other kind of "source", be it a gimp
xcf project file, a scalabale vector graphics, or any other kind of image
project file. It has never been required to ship whatever the creators have
been used to create the image (and I have maintained dozens of packages).

Neither the Debian policy nor the GPL request to ship anything other than the
image file itself. Why should I provide a RAW or SVG file to fulfill the policy
or the GPL? On what grounds is that request based?

JFTR: Even if an image has a hint that it was processed by inkscape, the source
could have been a PNG or JPEG as well as inkscape can load such files too.

> > I also noticed that rake_task.rb is GPL-2+ not GPL-3+.
> 
> The file rake_task.rb says:
> "... under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> published by # the Free Software Foundation; either version
> 2 of the License, or (at # your option) any later version."
> 
> But of course version 2 would be more correct.

Actually the webgen source is GPL-3+, not GPL-3 as claimed by the license-
shortname in debian/copyright. That should indeed be changed/fixed with the
next upload. There is no reason that we limit the source to v3 of the GPL for
the Debian package. However, given the fact that the file in question is GPL-2+
and that most parts of the project's source are GPL-3+, I think it is a
sensible decision to put rake_task.rb in the Debian package under GPL-3(+) as
well in accordance with its licensing. I saw it before I uploaded it and still
think that this is ok.

Regards, Daniel
-- 
Regards,
Daniel Leidert <dleidert at debian.org> | https://www.wgdd.de/
GPG-Key RSA4096 / BEED4DED5544A4C03E283DC74BCD0567C296D05D
GPG-Key ED25519 / BD3C132D8B3805D1808123AB7ACE00941E338C78

https://www.fiverr.com/dleidert
https://www.patreon.com/join/dleidert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers/attachments/20210519/27f06185/attachment.sig>