Re: [ubuntu-art] Breathe PPA
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Cory K. wrote: >> Anyways, the packaging seems about ready for release. Should we wait >> for 0.50? What's the time frame for that? >> > > Let's push the 0.50 release on the 12th. Will give some time for little > fixes and to wrap up a few other items. > > So, artists if you have something cookin' get it to me by the 10th so I > have time to up[load and test. > > @Andrew: You're going to take over the "BreatheMgr" account at > GNOME-Look so as to handle the releases there correct? Sure thing. Contact me off list with the account info. - Andrew -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Breathe PPA
Andrew SB wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Andrew SB wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Kenneth Wimer wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday 30 June 2009 22:40:22 Cory K. wrote: >>> Kenneth Wimer wrote: > On Tuesday 30 June 2009 10:31:00 Cory K. wrote: > >> Andrew SB wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Cory K. wrote: >>> So what's your next move? Do you wanna try to go for a 0.44 upload to REVU or does kwwii wanna take this on? (as we've chatted before about it. just had to give him the go. GO!) :P >>> Well, there's some work that probably needs to get done before it will >>> get accepted. >>> >>> * License Review: >>> - COPYING (and debian/copyright) claim CC-BY-SA-3.0 while svg >>> metadata says CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 >>> - Which is right? >>> - Are NC license "non-free"? >>> - Jakub Steiner listed in svg metadata, but not AUTHORS (and >>> debian/copyright) - Oxygen team is in AUTHORS but not >>> debian/copyright. >>> >>> I know in Debian, even though they now accept CC-3.0, NC is considered >>> "non-free." I can't seem to find a clear statement on whether it's >>> acceptable in Ubuntu Universe, but my feeling is that it is not. >>> >>> >From the Debian Free Software Guidlines FAQ: >>> >>> (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html) >>> >>> "Q: Can I say "You must not use the program for commercial purposes"? >>> >>> A: This is non-free. We want businesses to be able to use Debian for >>> their computing needs. A business should be able to use any program in >>> Debian without checking its license." >>> >>> Anyone seen a definitive Ubuntu policy statement on this? Again, my >>> inclination is that the license is "non-free." If someone wanted to >>> roll a commercial Ubuntu derivative, in theory they should be able to >>> redistribute anything in Universe with no problem. >>> >> The 1st. CC-BY-SA-3.0 The metadata in the SVGs should be stripped. It's >> a remnant of something that never worked. Oxygen is dual-licensed: >> http://www.oxygen-icons.org/?page_id=4 >> > You need to at least continue the copyright that Jakub expresses for the > purposes he expressed it (ie, don't remove any of the copyright notices > which attribute his work to him). > I don't use any direct work from him. Only the idea. We should give him a shout out anyway. >>> To be honest, unless you have plans to make big bucks on this stuff I would >>> assign copyright as broadly as needed amongst known open source >>> advocates/artists. As long as the original material is in line with your >>> licensing, why not? (if some part of their work did indeed make it into >>> yours) >>> >>> Any metadata in the SVGs I added because I thought it would be fun to use. Turns out, nobody cared. >>> Lol, no doubt. It only adds value as an additional copyright notice for the >>> actual author(s). In the end, you can do this via the AUTHORS file as well >>> as the COPYRIGHT, etc. >>> >> Getting all the licensing / copyright in order can be a bit tedious, >> but not having it right is the main reason why packages get rejected >> in NEW. Getting everything straightened out for gnome-colors was a >> real hassle, as the icons in that set come from a few different >> sources. >> >> I fixed the metadata in the svg's. As they all use the same template >> it was painless. For the record here is the command I ran: >> >> find . -type f -name *.svg | xargs sed -i -e "s/by-nc-sa/by-sa/g" >> >> > If there are oxygen icons or parts of oxygen icons > being used (or even if there is a very strong similarity in design or > style) you should include the names of the authors in the AUTHORS file > as > well as attributing the correct licence. > > It seems to me, just by reading this and not getting into it very deep > that you do not need to include the oxygen list (and if it turned out > that you did, I am sure I would ask nicely first :p) > I think I mention the team. Kenneth, if you could, please look through the packaging branch and see if things fit your idea of how they should be. Credit and what not. >>> To be honest, I wouldn't definitely notice, off the bat, if some small part >>> is being copied and to be even more honest, I doubt we would raise a fuss in >>> any case unless of course you step on the toes of an oxygen core member by >>> attributing something he did as your own (so don't even think of trying to >>> earn money on it without following the licensing, which is in line in both >>> packages. If it came down to a situation in which a breathe icon became >>> amazin
Re: [ubuntu-art] Breathe PPA
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Andrew SB wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Kenneth Wimer wrote: >> On Tuesday 30 June 2009 22:40:22 Cory K. wrote: >>> Kenneth Wimer wrote: >>> > On Tuesday 30 June 2009 10:31:00 Cory K. wrote: >>> >> Andrew SB wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Cory K. wrote: >>> So what's your next move? Do you wanna try to go for a 0.44 upload to >>> REVU or does kwwii wanna take this on? (as we've chatted before about >>> it. just had to give him the go. GO!) :P >>> >>> >>> >>> Well, there's some work that probably needs to get done before it will >>> >>> get accepted. >>> >>> >>> >>> * License Review: >>> >>> - COPYING (and debian/copyright) claim CC-BY-SA-3.0 while svg >>> >>> metadata says CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 >>> >>> - Which is right? >>> >>> - Are NC license "non-free"? >>> >>> - Jakub Steiner listed in svg metadata, but not AUTHORS (and >>> >>> debian/copyright) - Oxygen team is in AUTHORS but not >>> >>> debian/copyright. >>> >>> >>> >>> I know in Debian, even though they now accept CC-3.0, NC is considered >>> >>> "non-free." I can't seem to find a clear statement on whether it's >>> >>> acceptable in Ubuntu Universe, but my feeling is that it is not. >>> >>> >>> >>> >From the Debian Free Software Guidlines FAQ: >>> >>> >>> >>> (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html) >>> >>> >>> >>> "Q: Can I say "You must not use the program for commercial purposes"? >>> >>> >>> >>> A: This is non-free. We want businesses to be able to use Debian for >>> >>> their computing needs. A business should be able to use any program in >>> >>> Debian without checking its license." >>> >>> >>> >>> Anyone seen a definitive Ubuntu policy statement on this? Again, my >>> >>> inclination is that the license is "non-free." If someone wanted to >>> >>> roll a commercial Ubuntu derivative, in theory they should be able to >>> >>> redistribute anything in Universe with no problem. >>> >> >>> >> The 1st. CC-BY-SA-3.0 The metadata in the SVGs should be stripped. It's >>> >> a remnant of something that never worked. Oxygen is dual-licensed: >>> >> http://www.oxygen-icons.org/?page_id=4 >>> > >>> > You need to at least continue the copyright that Jakub expresses for the >>> > purposes he expressed it (ie, don't remove any of the copyright notices >>> > which attribute his work to him). >>> >>> I don't use any direct work from him. Only the idea. We should give him >>> a shout out anyway. >> >> To be honest, unless you have plans to make big bucks on this stuff I would >> assign copyright as broadly as needed amongst known open source >> advocates/artists. As long as the original material is in line with your >> licensing, why not? (if some part of their work did indeed make it into >> yours) >> >>> Any metadata in the SVGs I added because I thought it would be fun to >>> use. Turns out, nobody cared. >> >> Lol, no doubt. It only adds value as an additional copyright notice for the >> actual author(s). In the end, you can do this via the AUTHORS file as well >> as the COPYRIGHT, etc. > > Getting all the licensing / copyright in order can be a bit tedious, > but not having it right is the main reason why packages get rejected > in NEW. Getting everything straightened out for gnome-colors was a > real hassle, as the icons in that set come from a few different > sources. > > I fixed the metadata in the svg's. As they all use the same template > it was painless. For the record here is the command I ran: > > find . -type f -name *.svg | xargs sed -i -e "s/by-nc-sa/by-sa/g" > >> >>> > If there are oxygen icons or parts of oxygen icons >>> > being used (or even if there is a very strong similarity in design or >>> > style) you should include the names of the authors in the AUTHORS file >>> > as >>> > well as attributing the correct licence. >>> > >>> > It seems to me, just by reading this and not getting into it very deep >>> > that you do not need to include the oxygen list (and if it turned out >>> > that you did, I am sure I would ask nicely first :p) >>> >>> I think I mention the team. Kenneth, if you could, please look through >>> the packaging branch and see if things fit your idea of how they should >>> be. Credit and what not. >> >> To be honest, I wouldn't definitely notice, off the bat, if some small part >> is being copied and to be even more honest, I doubt we would raise a fuss in >> any case unless of course you step on the toes of an oxygen core member by >> attributing something he did as your own (so don't even think of trying to >> earn money on it without following the licensing, which is in line in both >> packages. If it came down to a situation in which a breathe icon became >> amazingly famous but was really based on an oxygen icon I am sure we could >> work something out...this isn't about becoming a super-star or something :p >> >>> >> Jakub's build system was used but there's no "copyright" there I know >>> >> of. I'm just giving attribution/props. If the Oxyge
Re: [ubuntu-art] [Breathe] newbie with a new old icon
Galan Montgomery wrote: > Hi, I've been following this list for awhile now and I figured it might > be time to participate a bit. I have to say that Breathe, even in it's > unfinished state, is easily one of the best looking icon sets out there. > That said, one icon in particular has been bothering me for ages: > go-home. I guess I have a pet-peeve against silhouette-style home icons. > They're just too... empty. > > Anyways, I'm not much of an artist, but a month or so ago I decided to > modify Daniel's icon a bit--give it a bit more detail. I've dabbled with > it on-and-off since then, and I think I finally have something worth > showing off. As a newbie, I'm not quite comfortable adding it to the > submission wiki, so I've included it as an attachment. Let me know what > you guys think. > Looks good, :) But only for the 128px , reducing the thickness of the roof would be better. cheers, mac_v -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] [Breathe] newbie with a new old icon
2009/7/8 Galan Montgomery > Hi, I've been following this list for awhile now and I figured it might be > time to participate a bit. I have to say that Breathe, even in it's > unfinished state, is easily one of the best looking icon sets out there. > That said, one icon in particular has been bothering me for ages: go-home. I > guess I have a pet-peeve against silhouette-style home icons. They're just > too... empty. > > Anyways, I'm not much of an artist, but a month or so ago I decided to > modify Daniel's icon a bit--give it a bit more detail. I've dabbled with it > on-and-off since then, and I think I finally have something worth showing > off. As a newbie, I'm not quite comfortable adding it to the submission > wiki, so I've included it as an attachment. Let me know what you guys think. > > > > I love your work, keep in mind for future work to fit the icons in the grid of pixels, for no icons blured. and takes care of maintaining the size of the edge with others action icons. if you use inkscape: view, grid ;) Daniel.P -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
