Ok, sounds good to me. :)

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@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