Ok, sounds good to me. :) Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prik...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Roman, > > Am Sonntag, dem 20.03.2022 um 14:58 +0100 schrieb Roman Scherer: >> Hi Liliana and Maxime, >> >> if the icons are really coming from [1], they seem to be licensed >> under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public >> License. >> >> If it is okay to include them, I could work on a patch that only >> installs the VS Code icons. I think we need to give credit and link >> to the Creative Commons license. Is it enough to add it to the >> license field and mention/link the VS Code icons in the description >> field? > Adding the license to the field with an appropriate comment would be > enough imho. If upstream decides to make a new release, we can also > use that -- or alternatively bump to the commit. > >> Before doing that, I would wait until someone clarified that the >> icons are really coming from [1] in the upstream issue. >> >> In the meantime I think it's best to include my patch that removes >> all icons from the source. >> >> What do you think? > I'm in the "let's wait and do the correct thing" camp. Having one > commit to restrict the sources to the correct set would be more > justifiable than overreacting, particularly given the FSDG stance on > non-functional data. That said, long-term this data needs to go :) > > Cheers
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
