It has been decided that those icons should be removed. http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/msg_01213.xml http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_141498.xml I can shuffle them under the carpet by editing the apache config but an uber-infra monkey should kill the script that creates those pages and the tarball, and an ultra-uber-infra CVS admin should kill'em all if we want them to disappear from sources.g.o and anoncvs.g.o as well
the script used to generate said icons lives in cvs, so I can't do anything about it until lark comes back up. (down currently to do OR windstorm)
Thanks, by the way.
Kurt were you able to kill the script, too? Now lark is quite back up from the windstorm I suppose :)
There is no reason to kill the script all together vs simply getting rid of the offending/questionable icons.
Can you pinpoint the safe ones with absolute certainly? I cannot, I can surely pinpoint a lot of ones that are not safe, but I cannot be certain of _every_ origin of the icons, as none seems to be original anyway, but just a copy past of a smaller icon inside a purple globe.
We don't kill all of the portage-tree if we have 1 ebuild that violates a copyright. So you are the one pushing for removal due to possible copyright problems. I'm asserting that many of the existing icons fall fully under the GPL. The burden of proof is in your court.
The decision to remove all icons has already been made: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20061214-summary.txt
Fine then I challenge such a decision. I'll restate we should only remove only whats in violation and it's Flameeyes job to pointout exactly what is in violation.
(In reply to comment #8) > Fine then I challenge such a decision. Nod, bring it up to the trustees. The council decission was intermediate, so that the trustees can work on it. They decided already that this is a legal problem. > I'll restate we should only remove only whats in violation and it's > Flameeyes job to pointout exactly what is in violation. Until the trustees revise their decission, these icons will be removed by Infra.
That same logic then says to remove the portage tree when there is a single ebuild that violates anybody copyrights. Well shit we have been guiltly of that plenty of times. Yet the tree remains.(In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > Fine then I challenge such a decision. > Nod, bring it up to the trustees. Alreayd did that on the NFP list. Dec 14 06 the same day as the initial posting by Grant. > The council decission was intermediate, > so that the trustees can work on it. They decided already that this is a > legal problem. The council has no place on such matters. So that point is moot.
> (In reply to comment #9) > Until the trustees revise their decission, these icons will be removed by > Infra. ++ (In reply to comment #10) > Alreayd did that on the NFP list. > Dec 14 06 the same day as the initial posting by Grant. > > > The council decission was intermediate, > > so that the trustees can work on it. They decided already that this is a > > legal problem. > > The council has no place on such matters. So that point is moot. The council realized that and ask the trustees who decided to yank all icons. The board of trustees has made a decision, now it needs to be enforced.
None of the icons have, as far as I can see, a proper copyright holder named and a distribution permission. This does not mean that they are public domain, but the other way around. The few that comes from CrystalSVG (KDE's icons) should be released under an appropriate license (LGPL for artists: http://www.kde-artists.org/node/122 ). There are Mozilla logos that are covered by Mozilla licensing or similar that I don't really understand well to say if they are safe or not. The bottomline is, I can point you to a good quantity of the icons that has to be removed, but I can't point you to _all_ of them as there certainly are others that I don't know enough about; at the same time, as we never got the copyright notices and all, we cannot consider them freely distributable to begin with.
(In reply to comment #9) > Until the trustees revise their decission, these icons will be removed by > Infra. As a side note, most technically-minded folks don't respond well to orders. Consider your tone when trying to get volunteers to do something you need them to do, regardless of what authority you may have on paper. Carrots get you much further than sticks. The icons stuff is commented out in the nightly scripts stored in CVS. Those scripts aren't updating on to loon for some reason. As soon as I get that figured out, I can stop these from generating. In the mean time, it would be great if we can resolve the disagreement in the bug here and come to a consensus.
(In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #9) > > Until the trustees revise their decission, these icons will be removed by > > Infra. > > As a side note, most technically-minded folks don't respond well to orders. > Consider your tone when trying to get volunteers to do something you need them > to do, regardless of what authority you may have on paper. Carrots get you > much further than sticks. FWIW, I didn't read that as an order directed at infra but simply as a statement that it would happen and infra would do it because only infra can do it. > The icons stuff is commented out in the nightly scripts stored in CVS. Those > scripts aren't updating on to loon for some reason. As soon as I get that > figured out, I can stop these from generating. In the mean time, it would be > great if we can resolve the disagreement in the bug here and come to a > consensus. I don't think we need a consensus to enforce a decision made by the board of trustees.
(In reply to comment #8) > Fine then I challenge such a decision. > I'll restate we should only remove only whats in violation and it's > Flameeyes job to pointout exactly what is in violation. > Fair enough, so here's my response (which is not necessarily that of the entire Board of Trustees). There is a significant difference between the icons that we host and the portage tree. In the case of the tree, if we find something that may be infringing, we can follow its history through bugs and CVS logs and reasonably expect to find some sort of provenance. Moreover, if a contribution by "foo" were found to be suspect, we could locate all related contributions and check their authenticity, too. With the icon set, though, I don't believe we have this sort of history. According to flameeyes, some of the icons definitely infringe copyright. It behooves us to check to see if other icons contributed by that person also do, but as far as I know we don't know which icons those are. As such, all of our icons are potentially suspect. Thus, my preference to yank all of the icons. We could then request contributions of icon sets, presumably through bugs, and only accept those that we can identify as being legal for us to redistribute. Yes, it's a pain, but I don't see a good alternative.
I am adding spock to this bug because x11-themes/gentoo-artwork contains the icons too.
The file in question returns a 404. Are we done with this bug now?
sure are
Well, the icons are still distributed by x11-themes/gentoo-artwork.
I'm disappointed in how this bug was handled in the end. We fed into the side of fear uncertainty and doubt and thus yanked all without even the most basic of reviews of the icons in question.
