(why don't these mails have a Reply-To header?) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Christian Vest Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 18/09/2006 0.38 Subject: Re: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone 2100 in Debian To: Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
novideo.rpl was with the original source and thus I assume it to be 100% GPL although it states otherwise. I have no idea if anything would break if it was removed. Worth trying out if the license notice can't be corrected. The COMPILE.html file is more or less public domain, I think. Rodzilla wrote the windows part of it and I've written the linux part. I don't care what license it has, and I don't think Rodzilla has either. If it helps you move on, feel free to tag it as GPL, and let Rodzilla sue me if he has a problem with that ;) install-sh ... is that used for anything? If it can be automatically generated at the user site, then it should be generated, and left out of the repository. IMHO. Cheers. 2006/9/18, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Just forwarding this. Original is from Linas Žvirblis for Debian. ------------------------------------------------------- Warzone 2100 was rejected from inclusion in Debian, because it seems to contain files released under licenses not documented in the COPYING file. I have located these so far (but there can be more): install-sh - X11 (MIT) license? COMPILE.html - GNU Free Documentation License? data/novideo.rpl - Copyright (c) 1997 Eidos plc. All rights reserved. While the first two are just a matter of listing them somewhere in COPYING and stating the licenses, the last one is definitely disturbing. We need to clarify this before Warzone 2100 will be able to enter Debian. ------------------------------------------------------- What do we want to do about it? install-sh is from autotools. Perhaps we can remove it and recreate it on the user end? What about COMPILE.html? Remove it? (There is also the COMPILE file.) Can we change that to the GPL? Do we want it to stay "FDL" and just mention it in the COPYING file? Or do we want to change it to eg. CC? What about other data and docs we add to the repository? What license shall that be? What about the novideo.rpl? Was that in the original 1.10 sources also? Is the license just mentioned wrongly? Do we need to remove it? Can we actually remove it or would that break the code? Questions, lots of questions... Dennis _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
-- "All good software releases were accidents corrected in the next version."
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
