game: redeclipse
Hello, I am currently working on packaging the game Red Eclipse: http://www.redeclipse.net/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/redeclipse/ (Getting it into Debian would be nice _if_ issues are resolved...) The license is causing me headaches: http://redeclipse.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/redeclipse/license.txt Specifically: Limited rights are granted to redistribute or recompress the entire distribution using different archival formats suitable for your OS (zip/tgz/deb/dmg), any changes beyond that require explicit permission from the developers. And: Use of any logos, trademarks, or other advertising/promotional material for Red Eclipse are free to use without consent, when used in conjunction with a Red Eclipse article, comment, review, advertisement, or redistribution of the game; regardless of the media featured in said material. Use for any other reason is strictly prohibited without explicit permission from the developers. (...I have already nagged about some points which have changed in the license... still barely better than bad though) What kind of modifications to the license/permissions as a packager would I request from the upstream authors in order for this to at least fit into non-free (preferably contrib/non-free)? sauerbraten and warsow have very similar licenses and are currently split in that way, with data residing in non-free: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/w/warsow-data/current/copyright http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/s/sauerbraten-data/current/copyright - arand -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTikDy1cunFm+wCTo15SLjUXV_4hRQSW5=n25_...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Don Armstrong wrote: Yes, but this isn't something that a sane upstream is ever going to do, so it's not worth discussing much. [And frankly, if it's something that upstream does do, one should strongly question whether Debian should actually be distributing the work in question anyway.] It can actually happen. Consider the case where someone edits an audiovisual work using uncompressed video and audio files, then deletes them when he's done because they take up too much space. Plenty of sane people will do this. (This situation also results in works which cannot be GPLed, if the original creator still has the uncompressed files and refuses to distribute them due to lack of bandwidth. GPL may not work too well when the source code is hundreds of times the size of the binary.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.lrh.2.00.1103210809001.16...@oxygen.rahul.net
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Don Armstrong wrote: Yes, but this isn't something that a sane upstream is ever going to do, so it's not worth discussing much. [And frankly, if it's something that upstream does do, one should strongly question whether Debian should actually be distributing the work in question anyway.] It can actually happen. Consider the case where someone edits an audiovisual work using uncompressed video and audio files, then deletes them when he's done because they take up too much space. Plenty of sane people will do this. In this case, by deleting the uncompressed form, they clearly show that they prefer to keep the compressed form for future modifications, rather than the uncompressed form. Hence, in this case, the actual source is the *compressed* form, being the preferred form for making further modifications. (This situation also results in works which cannot be GPLed, if the original creator still has the uncompressed files and refuses to distribute them due to lack of bandwidth. GPL may not work too well when the source code is hundreds of times the size of the binary.) Well, it's not the GPL that may fail to work well. The fact is that it's *not* Free Software, when the original author keeps the preferred form for making further modifications (that is to say: source code), but refuses to distribute it. Hence, whatever license you choose, you're *not* distributing Free Software, if you keep the source undisclosed. However, we also have to consider this: in some cases, when the uncompressed form is hundreds of times larger than the compressed form, the former may be really unpractical to handle. In those cases, maybe we prefer to use some compressed form to make further modifications, just for practical reasons. Well: in those cases, the preferred form for making further modifications is that *compressed* form, which is consequently the actual source! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpvqSPrA8GRj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lost sources
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote: Consider the case where someone edits an audiovisual work using uncompressed video and audio files, then deletes them when he's done because they take up too much space. Plenty of sane people will do this. In this case, by deleting the uncompressed form, they clearly show that they prefer to keep the compressed form for future modifications, rather than the uncompressed form. That's not so clear. Rather, I would interpret that situation as being that the merson who made the modifications isn't interested in making further modifications (or values making further modifications less than reclaiming the storage space). By that interpretation, they might answer a question of “what is the preferred form of the work for making modifications?” with “I prefer not to make any more modifications to this work”. In other words, by removing the uncompressed form, it's not clear that they've expressed a preference for making further modifications with any particular form. Hence, in this case, the actual source is the *compressed* form, being the preferred form for making further modifications. Yes, recipients who wish to make further modifications would have little choice but to do that. But the person who destroyed their uncompressed form hasn't necessarily shown they've even thought about this use case. However, we also have to consider this: in some cases, when the uncompressed form is hundreds of times larger than the compressed form, the former may be really unpractical to handle. In those cases, maybe we prefer to use some compressed form to make further modifications, just for practical reasons. That's a departure from what was concluded elsewhere in the thread: that free software entails that every recipient should have equal access to the work for making modifications. If recipients have access only to a lossy-compressed form, but one party still has access to the uncompressed form, surely that's not equal access and hence isn't satisfying the spirit of free software. Well: in those cases, the preferred form for making further modifications is that *compressed* form, which is consequently the actual source! I disagree. The preferred form is the uncompressed form, and simply isn't available to recipients in that case (and hence the recipients don't have the freedoms required). -- \ “Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything | `\that's even remotely true!” —Homer, _The Simpsons_ | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpjQn2N3kS69.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lost sources
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:08:13 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote: Consider the case where someone edits an audiovisual work using uncompressed video and audio files, then deletes them when he's done because they take up too much space. Plenty of sane people will do this. In this case, by deleting the uncompressed form, they clearly show that they prefer to keep the compressed form for future modifications, rather than the uncompressed form. That's not so clear. Rather, I would interpret that situation as being that the merson who made the modifications isn't interested in making further modifications (or values making further modifications less than reclaiming the storage space). By that interpretation, they might answer a question of “what is the preferred form of the work for making modifications?” with “I prefer not to make any more modifications to this work”. The fact is, whatever that person may think, sooner or later, the need for further modification may indeed arise. At that point, that person will answer the question with I would have preferred that other form, but I discarded it, hence I prefer this one, among the ones I kept around... In other words, by removing the uncompressed form, it's not clear that they've expressed a preference for making further modifications with any particular form. It's clear that they *will have* to prefer a compressed form, as soon as they face the need to make (unforeseen) further modifications... [...] However, we also have to consider this: in some cases, when the uncompressed form is hundreds of times larger than the compressed form, the former may be really unpractical to handle. In those cases, maybe we prefer to use some compressed form to make further modifications, just for practical reasons. That's a departure from what was concluded elsewhere in the thread: that free software entails that every recipient should have equal access to the work for making modifications. I was not clear, sorry. What I meant was: the we in we prefer includes the original author. If the uncompressed form is really unpractical to handle, it may happen that even the original author prefers to get rid of it and keep a compressed form for making further modifications. In other words, when the uncompressed form is really huge, it may happen that we fall back the case where the author deletes it, as discussed above. I hope it's clearer now. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpwb7NyNJEYi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Francesco Poli wrote: However, we also have to consider this: in some cases, when the uncompressed form is hundreds of times larger than the compressed form, the former may be really unpractical to handle. In those cases, maybe we prefer to use some compressed form to make further modifications, just for practical reasons. Well: in those cases, the preferred form for making further modifications is that *compressed* form, which is consequently the actual source! It's possible that the compressed form can be impractical for some purposes but not others. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.lrh.2.00.1103211503530.2...@oxygen.rahul.net
Fwd: Re: game: redeclipse
Sometimes... My email client... Original Message Subject: Re: game: redeclipse Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 03:04:54 + From: Arand Nash ienor...@gmail.com To: Paul Wise p...@debian.org On 22/03/11 00:03, Paul Wise wrote: Ugh, yet another game engine fork with other embedded code copies. Doesn't look like the license gives us permission to recompress the data and the redistribute that, ... redistribute or recompress I would suggest you ask them to fix that since it seems pointless to be able to recompress but not redistribute the result. That whole section you quote is really in conflict with the claimed zlib and CC-BY-SA licenses. Do they want it to be open source or not? Removing it might put the packages in main as long as the license document you pointed to is accurate on the all content ... is open source friendly point. I very much doubt that there is not a bit of non-free code hiding somewhere. At the very least for it to go into main, you will need to remove the logo: [CC-BY-SA] ... does not apply to the Red Eclipse logo, which is similar to what happened with the Firefox/Iceweasel case. The trademark bit is redundant, IIRC trademark law does not restrict the activities allowed by that section. The ... redistribute or recompress... is most definitely a wording error, this should be easily fixed. There are indeed several non-free items, ranging from CC-*-NC to All Rights Reserved (a particular wincompat.h item, which is unnecessary, but removing would mean modifying...) The all content...open source friendly mention is clearly non-true, so I am simply ignoring that. The way I am interpreting the license: If you want to redistribute the data which would otherwise be undistributable, you would need to do so under the gratis-ware clause and include everything unchanged. The client/server/enet code would be *possible* to distribute separately under a Zlib/Expat license provided the name Red Eclipse or the logo is not used. As of now I guess the data would need to be given special permission in order to be redistributed in a packaged version (which I presume is hard to do without changing it, regardless of what the license says about recompress...deb). This I have already been told is OK, by upstream. Basically that I as their For the sake of argument release manager Would be allowed to release my packaging (i.e. modified version) under the same terms as that of the upstream version. I guess that this might at least fulfill requirements for non-free? Am I correct in any of these points? - arand -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d881256@gmail.com
