Re: RFS: teeworlds
2008/4/14, Jack Coulter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package teeworlds. * Package name: teeworlds Version : 0.4.2-0 Upstream Author : Magnus Auvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.teeworlds.com * License : Custom free license, satisfies DFSG Section : games The license text is: Copyright (C) 2007-2008 Magnus Auvinen This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required. 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. 4. Neither this software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself. IMPORTANT NOTE! The source under src/engine/external are stripped libraries with their own licenses. Mostly BSD or zlib/libpng license but check the individual libraries. With that being said, contact us if there is anything you want to do that the license does not premit. That's the zlib license (http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html) with an extra clause forbidding some kind of commercial usage (Neither this software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself). I'm not really sure that it is DFSG-compliant. I'm CCing debian-legal to get other opinions on that. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: teeworlds
Hi! Am 14.4.2008 schrieb Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 4. Neither this software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself. Uhm... Please reconsider if that's a DFSG-free license ;) Yours sincerely, Alexander
Re: RFS: teeworlds
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the zlib license (http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html) with an extra clause forbidding some kind of commercial usage (Neither this software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself). I'm not really sure that it is DFSG-compliant. I'm CCing debian-legal to get other opinions on that. That is a similar clause to the one in the Open Font Library. Fonts using the OFL have been accepted into Debian, so presumably the ftpmasters would accept this licence. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: teeworlds
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is a similar clause to the one in the Open Font Library. Fonts using the OFL have been accepted into Debian, so presumably the ftpmasters would accept this licence. s/Library/Licence -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: teeworlds
Paul Wise wrote: On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the zlib license (http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html) with an extra clause forbidding some kind of commercial usage (Neither this software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself). I'm not really sure that it is DFSG-compliant. I'm CCing debian-legal to get other opinions on that. That is a similar clause to the one in the Open Font Library. Fonts using the OFL have been accepted into Debian, so presumably the ftpmasters would accept this licence. Indeed, various fonts using a license with such a clause have been accepted in main like the Dejavu fonts and about 30 other open fonts to extend the i18n coverage and typographic quality of Debian: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/ttf-dejavu/ttf-dejavu_2.24-2/ttf-dejavu.copyright It's been recognized to comply with the requirements of DFGS #1. OTOH if teeworld is not font software, IMHO there are enough good DFSG-validated licenses for pure software without the need for new ones. HTH -- Nicolas Spalinger http://scripts.sil.org http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/ https://launchpad.net/people/fonts signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
help needed regarding installation
I am trying to install a source package bnfc using different package management tools and tried options but having problems: While running commands (red coloured font) to install a source package i am having problems (green coloured font) Using* apt* debianabc:/home/fast# cd debian debianabc:/home/fast/debian# apt-get source bnfc Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done *E: You must put some 'source' URIs in your sources.list *debianabc:/home/fast/debian# apt-get build-dep bnfc Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done *E: You must put some 'source' URIs in your sources.list *debianabc:/home/fast/debian# cd bnfc2.2 bash: cd: bnfc2.2: No such file or directory debianabc:/home/fast/debian# cd bnfc-2.2 debianabc:/home/fast/debian/bnfc-2.2# debuild -uc -us *bash: debuild: command not found *debianabc:/home/fast/debian/bnfc-2.2# -- *Error Identified: devscripts package was to be installed, so i tried installing that using aptitude but* Using* aptitude* I placed the required files* i.e* .dsc file+.tar.gz file at the following location /root/debian debian:~# pwd /root debian:~# cd debian debian:~/debian# aptitude install devscripts Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading extended state information Initializing package states... Done Reading task descriptions... Done Building tag database... Done *Couldn't find any package whose name or description matched devscripts* *No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed.* *0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.* Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used. -- Regards, Zainab Rehman
Re: RFS: teeworlds
Le Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 04:19:12PM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit : On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the zlib license (http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html) with an extra clause forbidding some kind of commercial usage (Neither this software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself). I'm not really sure that it is DFSG-compliant. I'm CCing debian-legal to get other opinions on that. That is a similar clause to the one in the Open Font Library. Fonts using the OFL have been accepted into Debian, so presumably the ftpmasters would accept this licence. Hi Paul If yes, please post a mail on [EMAIL PROTECTED], because I bet that many maintainers of non-free packages will be happy to make an upload to main. More seriously, this is obviously non-free, and would make serious difficulties for the distributors of Debian CDs. Consider that even software that allow redistibution for a fee but disallow profit are not accepted in main. Jack, I strongly recommend to contact Upstream and to expose some clear arguments in a kind and friendly style. No commercial use was invented in a past were people did not try to live from free software. Upstream may be sensitive to this, to the problem of redistribution, and might accept to relicense. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wakō, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: teeworlds
I asked around on the Teeworlds IRC channel, they pointed me to the following thread on thier forums: http://www.teeworlds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=957 The second post, by user matricks (matricks = copyright holder) clarifies this: We don't restrict selling it as a part of a bigger distribution like ubuntu and stuff like that. What we are restricting is that you can't sell just teeworlds and take money except for the media cost. This license was discussed in great length and input were taken from some fedora legal guy (can't remember the name). The SIL Open Font Licence contains a similar statement and is considered to be free by the FSF guys. I hope this clears things up a bit. Jack Coulter Charles Plessy wrote: Le Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 04:19:12PM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit : On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the zlib license (http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html) with an extra clause forbidding some kind of commercial usage (Neither this software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself). I'm not really sure that it is DFSG-compliant. I'm CCing debian-legal to get other opinions on that. That is a similar clause to the one in the Open Font Library. Fonts using the OFL have been accepted into Debian, so presumably the ftpmasters would accept this licence. Hi Paul If yes, please post a mail on [EMAIL PROTECTED], because I bet that many maintainers of non-free packages will be happy to make an upload to main. More seriously, this is obviously non-free, and would make serious difficulties for the distributors of Debian CDs. Consider that even software that allow redistibution for a fee but disallow profit are not accepted in main. Jack, I strongly recommend to contact Upstream and to expose some clear arguments in a kind and friendly style. No commercial use was invented in a past were people did not try to live from free software. Upstream may be sensitive to this, to the problem of redistribution, and might accept to relicense. Have a nice day, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: teeworlds
2008/4/14, Jack Coulter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I asked around on the Teeworlds IRC channel, they pointed me to the following thread on thier forums: http://www.teeworlds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=957 The second post, by user matricks (matricks = copyright holder) clarifies this: We don't restrict selling it as a part of a bigger distribution like ubuntu and stuff like that. What we are restricting is that you can't sell just teeworlds and take money except for the media cost. This license was discussed in great length and input were taken from some fedora legal guy (can't remember the name). The SIL Open Font Licence contains a similar statement and is considered to be free by the FSF guys. I don't understand the purpose of that clause then, as it can be easily circumvented (with that interpretation, it would be a matter of just adding something else to the media). I don't see the point about adding a clause that adds no protection at all. I still don't feel that it's DFSG-free, but if there are already packages in the archive with similar clauses, ftpmasters will probably consider it DFSG-free. It's OK for me, I don't consider it such a serious issue as to arguing its inclusion in main, I was just curious about whether it was considered free enough or not. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: teeworlds
Hi! * Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080414 18:04]: I asked around on the Teeworlds IRC channel, they pointed me to the following thread on thier forums: http://www.teeworlds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=957 The second post, by user matricks (matricks = copyright holder) clarifies this: We don't restrict selling it as a part of a bigger distribution like ubuntu and stuff like that. What we are restricting is that you can't sell just teeworlds and take money except for the media cost. This license was discussed in great length and input were taken from some fedora legal guy (can't remember the name). The SIL Open Font Licence contains a similar statement and is considered to be free by the FSF guys. I don't understand the purpose of that clause then, as it can be easily circumvented (with that interpretation, it would be a matter of just adding something else to the media). I don't see the point about adding a clause that adds no protection at all. That is a so ridiculous license term... You could just to an echo '' .sh and you appearently bundled it together with a script which doesn nothing. I still don't feel that it's DFSG-free, but if there are already packages in the archive with similar clauses, ftpmasters will probably consider it DFSG-free. It's OK for me, I don't consider it such a serious issue as to arguing its inclusion in main, I was just curious about whether it was considered free enough or not. Talked to Jörg Jaspert about that (you need to do something during work time, don't you?), and this clause is indeed free (since it's so ridiculous easy to circumvent^W fullfill). So for the sake of gaming, bundle it with any kind of script, and be done with it. Yours sincerely, Alexander signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: teeworlds
Alexander Schmehl dijo [Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 06:24:36PM +0200]: I still don't feel that it's DFSG-free, but if there are already packages in the archive with similar clauses, ftpmasters will probably consider it DFSG-free. It's OK for me, I don't consider it such a serious issue as to arguing its inclusion in main, I was just curious about whether it was considered free enough or not. Talked to Jörg Jaspert about that (you need to do something during work time, don't you?), and this clause is indeed free (since it's so ridiculous easy to circumvent^W fullfill). So for the sake of gaming, bundle it with any kind of script, and be done with it. But please try to make this world a saner place by talking about this to the upstream author. Even if he notices the license as a goofup and relicenses under a non-free license... It's better for him to abandon a license with such stupid claims. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help needed regarding installation
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 17:13 +0500, Zainab Rehman wrote: I am trying to install a source package bnfc using different package management tools and tried options but having problems: You need to put some internet-based repositories in your apt sources. http://www.uk.debian.org/mirrors/list $ cat /etc/apt/sources.list deb ftp://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ unstable main deb-src ftp://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ unstable main Replace the location with one close to your own location. You *must* include a deb-src repository (and it needs to be an official Debian one, not just mentors.debian.net or some private mirror). E: You must put some 'source' URIs in your sources.list This means you have no deb-src lines in /etc/apt/sources.list or in files beneath /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ debianabc:/home/fast/debian# apt-get build-dep bnfc Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done E: You must put some 'source' URIs in your sources.list You cannot download source without a deb-src. Error Identified: devscripts package was to be installed, so i tried installing that using aptitude but You also don't appear to have a normal Debian mirror available. deb ftp://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ unstable main Whatever sources you have (maybe CD/DVD or some other local mirror) is incomplete because devscripts is the correct package name. debian:~/debian# aptitude install devscripts Couldn't find any package whose name or description matched devscripts Which means that your apt sources are broken. Add a local primary mirror from the link above. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: help needed regarding installation
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 06:35:21PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 17:13 +0500, Zainab Rehman wrote: It should be added that there's no need to apt-get source as a privileged user. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: teeworlds
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:45:23 -0500 Gunnar Wolf wrote: Alexander Schmehl dijo [Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 06:24:36PM +0200]: [...] Talked to Jörg Jaspert about that (you need to do something during work time, don't you?), and this clause is indeed free (since it's so ridiculous easy to circumvent^W fullfill). So for the sake of gaming, bundle it with any kind of script, and be done with it. I agree that this restriction does *not* fail the DFSG, but, as said elsewhere in this same thread, it's silly. It can be easily circumvented, so it's useless. See my 2-byte script example in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00077.html As usual, my disclaimers are: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. But please try to make this world a saner place by talking about this to the upstream author. Yes, I definitely agree that upstream could be suggested to drop such a useless restriction and adopt the plain (unmodified) zlib license. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpsjkiUQUiRH.pgp Description: PGP signature
RFS: lynis (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.1.1-1 of my package lynis. It builds these binary packages: lynis - security auditing tool for Unix based systems Long Description: Lynis is an auditing tool for Unix. It scans the system configuration and creates an overview of system information and security issues usable by professional auditors. It can assist in automated audits. . Lynis can be used in addition to other software, like security scanners, system benchmarking and fine-tuning tools. The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lynis - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lynis/lynis_1.1.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards -- Francisco M. García Claramonte [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: public key ID 556ABA51 signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: RFS: gtkvncviewer
Please provide a reason for why this should be a native package or repackage it as non-native. See http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html#native_vs_non_native for further information. Helmut -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: nlkt
I'm prepared debs for i386, amd64, and deb-src: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=218218 Please provide a dsc file. It also looks like you have created a native package. Is this necessary? See http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html#native_vs_non_native Helmut -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: teeworlds
I've spoken again to matricks, he's stated that in the next release, he'll be changing the license slightly, it will still remain free, but he's going to clarify the last point. Aside from that, is this package suitable for inclusion? Are there any changes I need to make? Thanks, Jack Coulter Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:45:23 -0500 Gunnar Wolf wrote: Alexander Schmehl dijo [Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 06:24:36PM +0200]: [...] Talked to Jörg Jaspert about that (you need to do something during work time, don't you?), and this clause is indeed free (since it's so ridiculous easy to circumvent^W fullfill). So for the sake of gaming, bundle it with any kind of script, and be done with it. I agree that this restriction does *not* fail the DFSG, but, as said elsewhere in this same thread, it's silly. It can be easily circumvented, so it's useless. See my 2-byte script example in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00077.html As usual, my disclaimers are: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. But please try to make this world a saner place by talking about this to the upstream author. Yes, I definitely agree that upstream could be suggested to drop such a useless restriction and adopt the plain (unmodified) zlib license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: QA Upload: libggi -- General Graphics Interface runtime libraries
Hi folks, I've been working on this sucker for days and I think I've taken it about as far as I care too. There are still a couple of lintian warnings but I am not sure I can spend the time working on debconf for a package I don't maintain. If someone has time to review and/or possibly upload I would appreciate it. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libggi/libggi_2.2.2-1.dsc Description: General Graphics Interface runtime libraries General Graphics Interface - a fast, portable graphics environment. . This package contains the shared libraries for libGGI, the lowest-level drawing library provided by GGI. . Since none of the targets included here are, alone, capable of real, physical graphics output, you'll probably need to install at least one of the libggi-target packages to make any kind of sensible use of libGGI. Thanks, Barry deFreese -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trouble with a pecl extention
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi again I'm having trouble packaging a pecl extinction with dh-make-pecl. Everything seems to work great until the call to dh_instaldirs then i get this weird error rm -f libphp.la modules/* libs/* make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/php-gnupg-1.3.1/gnupg-1.3.1' touch build-stamp-v5 fakeroot debian/rules binary dh_testdir dh_testroot # can't dh_clean here without specifically excluding the possibly existing installed dirs # for other version. #dh_clean -k dh_installdirs # Add here commands to install the package into debian/php-gnupg. mkdir -p debian/php5-gnupg//usr/lib/php5/20060613+lfs install -m 644 -o root -g root tmp/modules5/gnupg.so debian/php5-gnupg//usr/lib/php5/20060613+lfs/gnupg.so install: cannot stat `tmp/modules5/gnupg.so': No such file or directory make: *** [install-v5] Error 1 dpkg-buildpackage: failure: fakeroot debian/rules binary gave error exit status 2 I know it has to be something simple that I'm not seeing. Maybe an extra pair of eyes (or two) could help here I've been trying to figure it out for two days now! source package is at [1]. Matt Arnold (cybermatt/asctxt) [1] http://thegnuguru.org/wsvn/listing.php?repname=pkg-mattpath=%2Ftrunk%2Fphp-gnupg%2F#_trunk_php-gnupg_ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIBBn6fGeS0kace80RArdmAJsEwGXGxuWtWxpwtWLDWfP7UlSr1gCeMR5Q owzxsT/aehhDxiddvQhyfA0= =dTZL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: teeworlds
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:16 AM, Jack Coulter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've spoken again to matricks, he's stated that in the next release, he'll be changing the license slightly, it will still remain free, but he's going to clarify the last point. Please ask him to just drop it, since it is useless and isn't in the spirit of free software. Also licence proliferation is bad. Aside from that, is this package suitable for inclusion? Are there any changes I need to make? I suggest joining the Debian Games Team, adding your package there and helping out with other games (we need more contributors). -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
