[Pkg-dns-devel] dnsviz_0.5.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Wed Jul 6 22:56:28 UTC 2016

Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> if I download the file 
>  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg 
> and compare it to ./dnsviz-0.5.4/doc/src/warning.svg, they don't look 
> identical. Shouldn't that be the case?

Hi, Thorsten:

I'm confused why you would be comparing those two. Surely you should be
comparing it to ./dnsviz-0.5.4/doc/src/error.svg, not .../warning.svg?

Here is what is listed in ./dnsviz-0.5.4/doc/src/COPYRIGHT:

src/warning.svg:
    [...]
    Downloaded from:
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Ambox_warning_yellow_2.svg
    [...]

src/error.svg:
    [...]
    Downloaded from:
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg
    [...]

I'm not familiar with Wikimedia's URL practices. It doesn't look like
they guarantee that the same content will always be served from the same
URL forever. For instance the original download URL for the
.../src/warning.svg file returns a 404 now. It looks like the download
URL has changed to:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg

The changes between the current content of ./dnsviz-0.5.4/doc/src/error.svg
and the Wikimedia content are minimal, probably the result of opening
and saving the file in another program or something?

    edmonds at chase{0}:/tmp/x/dnsviz-0.5.4/doc/src$ wget -nv -O error.svg.wiki https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg       
    2016-07-06 18:22:35 URL:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg [2517] -> "error.svg.wiki" [1]

    edmonds at chase{0}:/tmp/x/dnsviz-0.5.4/doc/src$ diff -U0 error.svg.wiki error.svg
    --- error.svg.wiki	2016-06-07 11:11:59.000000000 -0400
    +++ error.svg	2016-06-07 14:35:30.000000000 -0400
    @@ -1 +1 @@
    -<?xml version="1.0"?>
    +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    @@ -24 +24 @@
    -</svg>
    +</svg>
    \ No newline at end of file
    edmonds at chase{1}:/tmp/x/dnsviz-0.5.4/doc/src$ 

and there are *no* changes at all between Wikimedia's
Ambox_warning_yellow.svg and DNSViz's warning.svg:

    edmonds at chase{0}:/tmp/x/dnsviz-0.5.4/doc/src$ wget -nv -O warning.svg.wiki https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg
    2016-07-06 18:41:10 URL:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg [2133] -> "warning.svg.wiki" [1]
    edmonds at chase{0}:/tmp/x/dnsviz-0.5.4/doc/src$ diff -U0 warning.svg.wiki warning.svg
    edmonds at chase{0}:/tmp/x/dnsviz-0.5.4/doc/src$ md5sum warning.svg*
    f06c8750d13b63639bca19db414acdd3  warning.svg
    f06c8750d13b63639bca19db414acdd3  warning.svg.wiki
    edmonds at chase{0}:/tmp/x/dnsviz-0.5.4/doc/src$ 

> Anyway, I see no difference between a statement written on a website or 
> a statement placed in the metadata of a file. So from my point of view 
> the statement inside the file has precedence over detached statements. 

But there is no such embedded metadata in the current versions of these
files? There are only the statements on the Wikimedia pages, and the
copies of those statements in DNSViz's doc/src/COPYRIGHT file.

> The same would be valid for files containing licenses in the header 
> and a "global" COPYING file.

I am not a copyright lawyer in any jurisdiction, but I suspect there is
a major difference between:

    /*
     * Copyright (C) 2016 James Hacker 
     *
     * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify 
     * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by 
     * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or 
     * (at your option) any later version. 
     *
     * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, 
     * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of 
     * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the 
     * GNU General Public License for more details. 
     *
     * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License 
     * along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. 
     */

and

    <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/">
    <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction"/>
    <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution"/>
    <cc:requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice"/>
    <cc:requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribution"/>
    <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/DerivativeWorks"/>
    <cc:requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/ShareAlike"/>
    </cc:License>

(One includes a copyright notice and license statement, and one does
not.)

But that is kind of orthogonal to dnsviz 0.5.4-1.

> Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
> your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our
> concerns.

I don't understand why my files were rejected. Could you please take
another look at them?

Thanks!

-- 
Robert Edmonds
edmonds at debian.org