Re: RFS: teeworlds
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:16:28 +1000 Jack Coulter 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. That silly restriction should not be "clarified"! It should be entirely dropped and the plain unmodified zlib license should be adopted! > > Aside from that, is this package suitable for inclusion? Are there any > changes I need to make? As I said, the main license (zlib license + additional silly restriction) already meets the DFSG. However, it meets the DFSG just because the selling restriction may be easily circumvented; that's why I suggest that the restriction is dropped entirely from the license text: for the sake of clarity and simplicity, no useless restrictions should be present in license texts... As far as the rest of the package is concerned, I didn't see any detailed info about the licensing status of the files released under different terms, so I cannot comment any further... Once more, my disclaimers are: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. P.S.: please send replies to both debian-mentors and debian-legal, as appropriate, rather than to me and debian-mentors, or otherwise other debian-legal participants won't see your replies at all... -- 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 pgpQInFhajsD9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: teeworlds
2008/4/15, Jack Coulter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Matricks also asked me to post his remarks on the licensing situation: > > [...] Well, he seems a reasonable one in the end. I'm sorry for my hard words in my previous mails, he didn't deserve them. He seems a bit burn out, I think we could make him cheer up a bit if he sees that people actually appreciate their game and that they like playing it. I have the feeling that some developers burn out because they only get complains and negative feedback, while the big amount of people that appreciate their work is often silent. As I said, I'm really sorry for my rudeness in my previous mails, I don't think he deserved it and in fact he just got the blame for some previous fightings with other upstreams that had nothing to do with him, that same way that we seemed to get the blame for previous fighting about their license in which we were not involved. I'll try to be more careful next time. Thanks to Charles Plessy for making me rethink about it. I consider all this issue to be finished and closed on my side. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: teeworlds
I've temporarily removed the package from mentors as it's now been uploaded to the debian-games SVN and a number of technical problems with the package are being resolved, I'll reupload it to mentors and send out a new RFS when its ready. Matricks also asked me to post his remarks on the licensing situation: "I thought I just might clear some things up. In the eyes of the public the Teeworlds (previously known as Teewars) is soon to turn 1 year old. Behind the curtains the project have a history of about 6 concrete years. I've written many version of the game and tried out many different things but it never mounted to a public release. When I wrote (from scratch) this version of Teeworlds I had one thing in mind, develop the game and nothing else. My intention were always to release it as open source so anyone that wanted could help and also so it could be played on various platforms that I don't have access to. Being open source haven't really given any real benefits for the project so far and I believe that I might have opened the source prematurely. The game might have benefited from being closed a while longer and giving me more time to just concentrate on developing the game but closing the source now is of cause to late and will just hurt the game even more. 0.1.x and 0.2.x were released without the source. 0.3.x were released with source but under a very strict license with the intention to change it in the future. The 0.4.x license (the current) were constructed with some of my private wishes and formulated by a license expert at Fedora (communicates to this guy where done through proxy guy) to make sure that I didn't step on anyones toes, which seams like it didn't help at all. The much discussed point 4 is my expressed wish and partly due to some of the troubled past with Teeworlds (don't ask, http://www.teeworlds.com/?page=journal&id=942). Also, I work at a game development house which complicates everything a bit when it comes to involvement of money. As long as it's a hobby thing it's not a problem. I don't really care about publicity, money etc, but I do care deeply about the game and what to see it materialized. Lately I've gotten less and less time to do actual work on the game (I'm only active coder on it) because of the color of the bike shed (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed) and getting kinda tired of it (not only the license question). This is something I've realized and started to move over more responsibility to other people that I can trust and can deal with it. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, I should have acted more professional. As for point 4, it will stay until I can figure out exactly how to deal with it. It can perhaps (read likely) be removed in the future but for now it stays due to various reasons. These things take time. Cheers, Magnus "matricks" Auvinen btw, Debian rocks! We use it on our server, my home server and I use xubuntu on my desktop at home :) " Thanks for your time and feedback, Jack Coulter Miriam Ruiz wrote: 2008/4/15, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Le Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:03:17AM +0200, Miriam Ruiz a écrit : In general I try to avoid heated discussions with stubborn upstreams The 4th point is simply totally stupid and useless Some upstreams are just plainly stupid It's simply too childish. Hello Miriam, Hi :) while I do not really disagree with your conclusions, I was just wondering before you sent this email if the discussion got heated because the upstream read the thread on -mentors and got upset by persons calling his license "stupid". No, not in this case. It all seems to come from a previous discussion among some of them, some time ago [1]. I chose the words I used consciously, so I cannot excuse myself by saying it was the heat of the discussion, even more when I'm not personally involved at all in this package in any way. I'm sorry if it seemed that I was talking about this concrete upstream, I was just generalizing. In fact I was really thinking about another concrete person (upstream of a couple of games) when I used the word "stupid", who really got the nerves out of me some time ago. I wasn't talking about this concrete upstream or this concrete situation, it's not the first time I go through something like this. Since we know that email is a communication method that is very prone to misunderstandings, I think that we should try to play safe when discussion about third parties on a public mailing list. To avoid misunderstandings and just in case, I'll try to clarify this: I wasn't calling stupid to anyone in particular and was just generalizing. In fact, I wasn't trying to insult upstream for this game: I don't know them, never met them, never spoke to them, so I cannot think anything of them, good or bad. As it is obvious, but wanting to make it crystal clear: my words are my personal opinion and in no way should be interpreted as representing Debian or the Debian Games Te
Re: RFS: teeworlds
2008/4/15, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Le Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:03:17AM +0200, Miriam Ruiz a écrit : > > > In general I try to avoid heated discussions with stubborn upstreams > > The 4th point is simply totally stupid and useless > > Some upstreams are just plainly stupid > > It's simply too childish. > > Hello Miriam, Hi :) > while I do not really disagree with your conclusions, I was just > wondering before you sent this email if the discussion got heated > because the upstream read the thread on -mentors and got upset by > persons calling his license "stupid". No, not in this case. It all seems to come from a previous discussion among some of them, some time ago [1]. I chose the words I used consciously, so I cannot excuse myself by saying it was the heat of the discussion, even more when I'm not personally involved at all in this package in any way. I'm sorry if it seemed that I was talking about this concrete upstream, I was just generalizing. In fact I was really thinking about another concrete person (upstream of a couple of games) when I used the word "stupid", who really got the nerves out of me some time ago. I wasn't talking about this concrete upstream or this concrete situation, it's not the first time I go through something like this. > Since we know that email is a communication method that is very prone to > misunderstandings, I think that we should try to play safe when > discussion about third parties on a public mailing list. To avoid misunderstandings and just in case, I'll try to clarify this: I wasn't calling stupid to anyone in particular and was just generalizing. In fact, I wasn't trying to insult upstream for this game: I don't know them, never met them, never spoke to them, so I cannot think anything of them, good or bad. As it is obvious, but wanting to make it crystal clear: my words are my personal opinion and in no way should be interpreted as representing Debian or the Debian Games Team in any way, or any other group of people apart of myself. If upstream for that game reads this and gets angry, my words are my own responsibility and it's me who they have to blame for them, and no one else. I'll try to be more politically correct with my words next time, to avoid potential problems with some upstreams. > I also wonder if IRC should be avoided for potentially difficult > interactions with upstream. Anyway, thank you Jack for having tried. Greetings, Miry [1] http://www.teeworlds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=957 "there have been quite a lot of nagging on the dev-team about the license. It started of back in the 0.3.x days, when the license was a bit more strict, and not to be considered "free". When they then changed the license to 0.4.x, some nagging just kept going on"
Re: RFS: teeworlds
Le Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:03:17AM +0200, Miriam Ruiz a écrit : > In general I try to avoid heated discussions with stubborn upstreams > The 4th point is simply totally stupid and useless > Some upstreams are just plainly stupid > It's simply too childish. Hello Miriam, while I do not really disagree with your conclusions, I was just wondering before you sent this email if the discussion got heated because the upstream read the thread on -mentors and got upset by persons calling his license "stupid". Since we know that email is a communication method that is very prone to misunderstandings, I think that we should try to play safe when discussion about third parties on a public mailing list. I also wonder if IRC should be avoided for potentially difficult interactions with upstream. Anyway, thank you Jack for having tried. 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
Alright, so all the licensing semantics aside, are there any technical issues with my package? Or are we set for someone to sponsor it? Thanks, Jack Coulter Paul Wise wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jack Coulter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After having a heated debate with matricks and another developer void_ on the teeworlds IRC channel, they are unwilling to change/remove point 4, but brought up (as it has been here) that there are already packages in main with similar clauses. I guess clause 4 is influenced by this situation: http://teeworlds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=942 In any case, the licence is better now than it used to be (no modifications before): http://mrcopilot.blogspot.com/2008/02/osggfg-31-tee-wars.html http://www.fsdaily.com/EndUser/Open_Source_Gamers_Guide_to_Free_Gaming_3_1_TeeWars_Review http://www.teewars.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=479 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: teeworlds
2008/4/15, Jack Coulter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > After having a heated debate with matricks and another developer void_ on > the teeworlds IRC channel, they are unwilling to change/remove point 4, but > brought up (as it has been here) that there are already packages in main > with similar clauses. In general I try to avoid heated discussions with stubborn upstreams that have no clue about licenses but won't even listen. It gets nowhere. The 4th point is simply totally stupid and useless, but I think it's no harm. Ftpmasters and most of the people in d-legal seem to consider it DFSG free, so just go ahead and package it :) > As other people mentioned here, it is *technically* DFSG compliant, and > really all this debate has just been about semantics, and I'd avoid bringing > it up again with the copyright holder (matricks) as he stated, he's spent > more time arguing license semantics than developing the game, and threatened > to close source it. Some upstreams are just plainly stupid about these kind of discussions. You simply tell them that the license has flaws and it's like you were insulting their families or something like that. "Now I get angry and I won't breath anymore". It's simply too childish. I had this kind of discussions with upstreams a couple of times and it's not worth it, if upstream just consider them so perfect that they won't even listen to your reasons, and start threatening you with stupid silly things, they won't act mature whatever you might do, so don't waste your energies there. > As it stands, I see no reason for this package not to be included in main, > referring to: > > "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." > > and > > "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." > > If there are any other issues, please email me back. Of course, as it has been mentioned, if you want to collaboratively maintain this game, you're welcome to join the Debian Games Team. Greetings, Miry
Re: RFS: teeworlds
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jack Coulter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After having a heated debate with matricks and another developer void_ on > the teeworlds IRC channel, they are unwilling to change/remove point 4, but > brought up (as it has been here) that there are already packages in main > with similar clauses. I guess clause 4 is influenced by this situation: http://teeworlds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=942 In any case, the licence is better now than it used to be (no modifications before): http://mrcopilot.blogspot.com/2008/02/osggfg-31-tee-wars.html http://www.fsdaily.com/EndUser/Open_Source_Gamers_Guide_to_Free_Gaming_3_1_TeeWars_Review http://www.teewars.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=479 -- 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 Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Jack Coulter wrote: > Just to add, matricks made a quick summary on the teeworlds trac > summarising his point: > (http://trac.teeworlds.com/trac/wiki/TiredMatricks) > > " Why I wont discuss these subjects > All people have a limited amount of time. As I'm almost the only coder > on the game I would like to spend my time improving the game instead of > dealing with questions that I've discuessed over and over again. That's a *prime* example of why you should use licenses which are in wide usage: if you're not a lawyer, writing or using obscure licenses is not for you. [And if you're a lawyer, you probably shouldn't be writing FOSS licenses either.] Hopefully I'm preaching to the choir on this point, but if not, learn from matricks. Don Armstrong -- There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the waking hours much more. -- Woody Allen http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: RFS: teeworlds
Just to add, matricks made a quick summary on the teeworlds trac summarising his point: (http://trac.teeworlds.com/trac/wiki/TiredMatricks) " Why I wont discuss these subjects All people have a limited amount of time. As I'm almost the only coder on the game I would like to spend my time improving the game instead of dealing with questions that I've discuessed over and over again. The License * It complys to the OSI definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php * It complys with Debian Free Software Guidelines: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg * No, it will not get changed because you complain." Thanks, Jack Coulter Paul Wise wrote: 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). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: teeworlds
After having a heated debate with matricks and another developer void_ on the teeworlds IRC channel, they are unwilling to change/remove point 4, but brought up (as it has been here) that there are already packages in main with similar clauses. As other people mentioned here, it is *technically* DFSG compliant, and really all this debate has just been about semantics, and I'd avoid bringing it up again with the copyright holder (matricks) as he stated, he's spent more time arguing license semantics than developing the game, and threatened to close source it. As it stands, I see no reason for this package not to be included in main, referring to: "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." and "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." If there are any other issues, please email me back. Thanks for your time, Jack Coulter Paul Wise wrote: 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). -- 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]
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]
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
RFS: teeworlds
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 It builds these binary packages: teeworlds - An online multi-player platform 2D shooter teeworlds-data - Data for Teeworlds; an online multi-player platform 2D shooter teeworlds-server - Server for Teeworlds; an online multi-player platform 2D shooter The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 460848 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/teeworlds - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/teeworlds/teeworlds_0.4.2-0.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Jack Coulter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
