Non-free lena.jpg

[nomacs]

Non-free lena.jpg

[diemmarkus]

hey, that's me : )
I did recently replace lena-full.jpg (a6c847a). However, I don't see licensing issues with lena.jpg (which should be renamed to lenna.jpg):

Use of this 512x512 scan is "overlooked" and by implication permitted by Playboy.

[tieugene]

Hi. Seems "permitted" is not "Licensed under FSF-compatible license" 27.03.2017 10:37, Markus Diem пишет:

…

hey, that's me : ) I did recently replace lena-full.jpg (a6c847a <a6c847a>). However, I don't see licensing issues with lena.jpg (which should be renamed to lenna.jpg): Use of this 512x512 scan is "overlooked <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenna.png#cite_note-Wired-2>" and by implication permitted by Playboy.

[diemmarkus]

we have already discussed this here: #28
To summarize:

• if you package nomacs you are free to replace lena.jpg with the above image
• we will keep it in the repo since permitted is enough for some OS

is this a solution for you too?

[AdamWill]

It's still slightly problematic in that there is no notice of the license issue in any of the obvious documentation, and it also makes things difficult for distributors as we cannot simply pull tarballs automatically from github, as they contain the non-free file. We have to write and maintain a script downstream to 'clean' the tarballs from upstream (i.e. unpack, remove/replace the file and repack), and this can break various tools which assumes the package spec file (or non-RPM equivalent) can simply specify a URL to the source tarball which the tool will be able to download.

[agaida]

i see this a little bit different - god damn, lintian is complaining about the filename "lena.jpg" (i've replaced it with a picture of my dogs) - so i had to repack nomacs, but as i have to repack it anyway, it is no additional burden.