Hi,
How can I handle something like this?
I just wanted to know under which license is it released,
because I cannot find any doc on that.
Pang 1.20 has no licence. It's totally free to use, and the
source code are available to anyone who want to begin coding
a game for example.
May I
Hi again,
Upstream has agreed to add a license file to the tgz archive:
This program is totally free and public domain. Do what you want to do with
the source code. If you want, just give me some credits (Michel Louvet) if you
port the game on another platform or use part of the source code.
Hi,
If anyone should dual-license a code, lets say like [BSD+announcement
clause] and [GPL], what should they better put in the header of the files?
Are there examples of something like this in the archive?
Thanks a lot,
Miry
PS: I'm not subscribed to the list, please CC me :)
2007/5/11, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi! :)
Thanks for your reply :)
What do you mean by announcement clause?]
Do you mean the Obnoxious Advertising Clause (OAC, hereinafter)?
See[1] for more information about the OAC.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
Yep, I mean
--- Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
We must determine what is the preferred form for making modifications to
the song. I'm not sure an Ogg Vorbis + MIDI form qualifies...
I think that's quite complex to decide on a single-game basis, as that
decision might affect most of other
Hi,
I want to package some games who happen to be remakes of older 8-bit games:
http://www.masoftware.es/
I've already talked to upstream and they're licensing them under GPL, so no
problem about the license. There are also other programs and games in the
repository which are more or less
Hi,
Would you think the license CC Sampling Plus 1.0 from Creative Commons would
be DFSG-Free?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/legalcode
I'm not very sure about this part:
* Re-creativity permitted. You may create and
2007/11/22, Tim Ansell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello,
As part of the Gaming Miniconf at Linux.conf.au 2008 I am hoping to run
a Licensing Issues for (Game) Content Developers panel session.
I know that there have been issues with games getting into debian's main
repository due to the licensing
As usual, I'm having some problems with licenses in Japanese.
From what I can understand, this license is free (public domain, in fact):
The Match-Makers (http://osabisi.sakura.ne.jp/m2/):
http://879.hanac200x.jp/se/index.html
ここの素材は著作権フリーですので、商用でも何でも自由に使って頂いて構いません。
This
2008/1/7, Ian Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Miriam,
http://879.hanac200x.jp/se/index.html
This site does appear to be copyright free and allows commercial and
non-commercial use. For commercial use however you need to contact the
author.
ここの素材は著作権フリーですので、商用でも何でも自由に使って頂いて構いません。
2008/1/8, Ian Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Point taken. Japanese courts seem to be a bit more concerned with intent
rather than the strength of the wording of a written agreement. If
non-commercial use being prohibited without permission is non-free then this
work should be interpreted as
2008/1/9, Barry deFreese [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
In trying to upgrade to the latest upstream for stormbaancoureur for the
Debian Games Team, Paul Wise caught the following in the package.
From /stormbaancoureur-2.0.1/images-stormbaancoureur/README
engine.tga
Rendered from purchased 3D
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 8/15/07, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/8/15, Bram Stolk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Miry,
All the artwork is done by me.
All the models were created by me.
All the sounds were recorded by me.
Great :
The engine in the opening screen
2008/1/13, Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
i just found the following 'ADDITIONAL TERMS per GNU GPL Section 7' at
http://www.donhopkins.com/home/micropolis/ for the former game SimCity
(now Micropolis). I would like to discuss it's DFSG freeness here:
Martin: Are you planning to
Tom spot Callaway, from Red Hat, announced [1] that Fedora won't be
including any game of the kind of Frets on Fire, Stepmania, pydance,
digiband, or anything of the kind of DDR or Guitar Hero, due to patent
concerns [2].
Due to patent concerns, we won't be able to include any games in Fedora
Hi,
I have some small problem with Gnash that might be extensible to other
packages, so I'm asking here to find out if anyone else has had that
problem too and how did they manage it.
Gnash is GNU's free Flash player. It is now licensed under GPLv3 (it
was previously GPLv2 or above). It has a
2008/1/24, Sven Joachim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Miriam,
You will be interested that Trolltech has released Qt 3.3.8 under GPL 3:
Thanks, it really solves a great part of the problem, but I have no
idea on how to check that there are no other GPLv2 only libraries
directly or indirectly linked,
2008/2/26, Eitan Isaacson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In addition to the permissions and restrictions contained in the GNU
General Public License (GPL), the copyright holders grant two explicit
permissions and impose one explicit restriction. The permissions are:
1) Using, copying, merging,
2008/2/27, Mike Sivill [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by the desert island test?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
2008/2/28, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my time... of course, there
is no explanation of how a licenses in which any changes must be sent to
some specific place violates:
1. Free redistribution.
1. Free Redistribution: The license of
2008/2/26, Eitan Isaacson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
3. The translation tables that are read at run-time are considered
part of this code and are under the terms of the GPL. Any changes to
these tables and any additional tables that are created for use by
this code must be made publicly
2008/3/5, Diggory Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So, I was wondering if it makes the most sense to take a flexible approach
and
release under version 2 or later of the GPL, albeit allowing problems with
either version of the license to be exploited, or be less flexible and
release under one
2008/3/6, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In my opinion, the decision boils down to:
o if you want to enhance compatibility *and* you trust the FSF to
keep the promise that future versions of the GNU GPL will be similar
in spirit to the present version[2][3], then you may choose a v2
2008/3/5, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Rather, it would be comunicación pública instead of distribución.
Law translation is a very specialized field; there's a reason that the
various translations of the GPL on the FSF website are not legally binding.
National laws that redefine
2008/3/11, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why describe the dissident test as relying solely on the field of
endeavour (DFSG 6) guideline? That's new and also seems like a strawman:
I think that it's clear that protesting is a field, but I don't think
identity-disclosure necessarily prevents
What about 6.2 - In the event Yahoo! determines that You have
breached this Agreement, Yahoo! may terminate this Agreement. ? Would
it give Yahoo! the power to terminate the license randomly at their
will (for example, if Microsoft buys it in the future), or is it safe
enough? In any case, I don't
2008/3/14, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The rest of the license seems to be a weak copyleft that's
GPL-incompatible.
Both v2 and v3 I guess?
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/3/19, timothy demulder [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi all,
Could someone explain me why flashplugin-nonfree is residing in contrib and
not in non-free?
Because the contents of that package are free (GPL v2 only). They just
depend on some other non-free stuff out of Debian. Keep in mind that
the
It seems that Gibson might be trying to stop Guitar Hero like games.
Activision filed a lawsuit asking the US District Court for Central
California to invalidate a 1999 Gibson patent on simulating a musical
performance. I don't think this applies to Frets on Fire, but just in
case, does anyone
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 :
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
2008/4/29 Thorsten Schmale [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
can you please check the following license for compliance:
Am I missing something or that's a standard 2-clause BSD license? [1]
Miry
[1]
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#head-85700b45e3e6dfe08d94e89b596be0e2a297c0c5
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
--- Friday 20/6/08, Jon Dowland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm sorry for the unpleasantness of this bug report :(
I don't think you can apply the BSD license to the
screenshots for all games. I think there is a compelling
argument that a thumbnailed screenshot is a derivative
work,
2008/6/21 Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Francesco,
Could someone out there help clarify those issues, please?
I hope mine is a useful contribution.
What I don't fully understand is: what is the purpose of the
games-thumbnails package?
Yes, it definitely is a useful contribution. I
AFAIK, CC-by-sa 2.0 is NOT DFSG-Free
CC-by-sa 3.0 is DFSG-free anyway. Would it be possible to convince
upstream to relicense it under this newer version?
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
The next actions then will be to remove all non-free games from the
thumbnails package and add all the copyright and license texts for the
games. At some point someone might consider adding a
games-thumbnails-nonfree package or something like that. I'm not
really sure about it anyway, as the
Hi,
Yesterday I filed an ITP [1] to package a 3D game engine in Python,
called PySoy [2]. The package is almost finished, but I'm facing a
problem that I have to clarify before uploading it to Debian. The
latest release (beta2) is GPLv3, but for next one (beta3) they're
changing the license to
2008/8/16 Vincent Bernat [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OoO En cette fin de nuit blanche du samedi 16 août 2008, vers 06:47,
Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait :
Do you think AGPLv3 is DFSG-free?
Hi Miriam!
Some discussions have already taken place here. The outcome was AGPLv3
was not DFSG
2008/8/18 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think there are other unclear aspects of the licence, some of which
may give rise to loopholes that we can use, which are largely similar
to those in AGPLv2 outlined by Anthony Towns in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00380.html
This is
2008/8/19 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Greets. It's been awhile since I unsubscribed to this list, so a quick
introduction is that I'm the maintainer of the PySoy project, the game
engine being discussed here.
Thanks a lot for your input here, Arc :)
your modified version must prominently
2008/8/19 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
To cut down on number of emails, I'm replying to both Miriam and Francesco
below:
Thanks a lot for your explanation, it clarifies a lot of things.
You are absolutely allowed to use that software in a private manner without
AGPLv3 section 13 coming into
I filed a bug to know the ftpmasters opinion on the subject:
http://bugs.debian.org/495721
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/8/21 Christofer C. Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, everything is pointing towards this situation:
1) The program must somehow inform the other user that the source code
is available, which might be quite hard depending
2008/8/23 Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So everything is fine until someone wants to modify the software.
But if they do, you say they are no longer allowed to run it without
fullfilling some restrictions. I fail to see how anyone can consider that
free.
A new question has come to my
2008/8/25 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I respectfully request that PySoy not be packaged in Debian if the AGPLv3 is
confirmed as non-free in the eyes of your project, as this would be
considered by our project as false advertising in grouping us along side
blatently proprietary apps.
I
2008/8/27 Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the case of point #3 that you're making here, are you saying that
the AGPLv3 fails the dissident test?
Yes, I'm saying that it might be failing it. If you use a program
Not that this matters, since this test is not part of
2008/8/27 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/27 Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the case of point #3 that you're making here, are you saying that
the AGPLv3 fails the dissident test?
Yes, I'm saying that it might be failing
2008/8/28 Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Miriam Ruiz writes (Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?):
Do you think AGPLv3 is DFSG-free?
Yes. The source-transmission requirement is hardly onerous, and there
is an important class of sitations where that extra restriction is
very
2008/8/28 Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not all restrictions are bad and unfree (except for the morons who argue
here from time to time that the GPL may not actually be DFSG-free).
There's no need to be rude or to insult [1] anyone just because they
don't share your
2008/8/30 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just host the source code at Savannah or any other similar service.
How does that scale when a lot of users modify or customize the code?
And, how can one do that and at the same time keep being anonymous
(dissident test)?
Greetings,
Miry
PS: I agree with
2008/9/1 Daniel Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
AGPLv3 may or may not be free, but as the discussion goes on I am
finding the arguments against it less credible as they seem to be
invoking 'problems' that are not really problems.
Some of the problems might be important anyway. I'll sum up my
2008/9/1 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2) Spam everyone I interact with, saying the client I'm using and how
to get the full source code.
The license does not say you must advertise, only that you must prominently
offer. In your example of an IRC network, providing a source URL with CTCP
2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and
act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance
with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee.
That leaves the rest of the license intact.
2008/9/2 Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It used to be that software ran on a computer on my desk, and I
interacted with the services provided by that software using the
attached monitor and keyboard. Now, I interact with the services
provided by software that runs on a computer somewhere
2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What about point 12?
What about it? A finding by a court that a GPL clause is severable
or that I am excused from complying with it is not a condition in
the sense of article 12.
OK, I trust you in this, but shouldn't we wait for a court to
2008/9/3 Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
MJ Ray wrote:
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
notify anyone in particular,
2008/9/3 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We only distribute source at the instant we distribute the binary. We
(generally[1]) don't distribute the source after we've stopped
distributing the binary. The AGPL requires
2008/9/3 Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
released, MJ Ray's concerns are quite real and they're something to
think about quite seriously.
I meant Don's concerns, sorry.
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
2008/9/3 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't see a conflict with the dissident test either; [...]
I'm not sure it does either, although I note that both Savannah and
Sourceforge (for example) have terms that require one's real name.
Which services allow anonymous hosting?
I
2008/9/3 Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Would you consider that anonymous enough to pass the dissident test?
The dissident test does not require that every possible method of source
distribution passes the test, but only that it's possible to pass the test.
I know
2008/9/10 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Anyways, I don't think the good intentions are misguided here, unless
you want to argue that the GPL itself is misguided. The two licenses
are nearly identical, after all.
A single sentence, even a single word, can change everything in a
2008/9/11 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You just changed it.
You now have to make it available (with its dependancies? i'm not sure).
No. It is neither standard nor customary to re-release an entire package
for a small bugfix. You could just upload a patch to the project's mailing
list and
2008/9/15 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Davi Leal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only
the
binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code)
is a
rectriction?
I think at
2008/9/17 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In
fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to
the whole of the work, and all it's parts, regardless of how they are
packaged. Thus if the game code
2008/9/18 Jamie Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
checkout from the revision control system. That may very well mean the
data will be in non-free and the game in contrib, but that is not unlike
GFDL licensed documentation that isn't
2008/9/19 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, I am upset this is the second time someone has made unfounded and
unresearched claims on this list regarding extra clauses being applied to
our software, and a good example why I'd prefer if Debian not have anything
to do with our project.
That's
Hi,
Does anyone know how this affects us -if it does- and if it might
change anything for the packages and programs that have problems with
software patents? Might there be any consequences out of this -even
though it is somehow USA-specific- or is it just blog noise?
Greetings,
Miry
The
2008/11/28 Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmaster and -team, have been asked
about an opinion about the AGPL in Debian.
The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can
go into main. (Provided they don't have any other
2008/12/2 Filippo Argiolas [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Miriam, probably you should forward them my last reply too.
Yup, sorry, I wrote my email before yours.
As I said I'm open to a name change or a suggestion.
The game it's been in Debian for more than one year now and no one
ever complained.
2008/12/2 Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok, well in that case I'll pass I'm already bothering legal way too often
with games related questions.
It would be better to have a name upstream likes, but if the name is
not legally safe for Fedora, it won't be for Debian either and
ignoring the
2008/12/2 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Resource requirements have not traditionally been considered factors
in judging software freeness.
But you are right that the AGPL (and perhaps the GPL version 3 as
well) fail my personal test for DRM-ness: A feature which, once added,
cannot be
Does anyone know if NASA conditions [1] are DFSG-free? According to
what's written there, it seems to me that they're public domain (NASA
still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the
rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon
data in any format,
2009/3/23 Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com:
I do not profess any expertise or experience with Debian policies other
than a general reading. Nor do I think of myself as a defender or
critic of any particular variation of a free license that an author
might choose. From the various objections I
2009/3/25 Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote:
Free-software licenses especially are (by definition) unilateral
grants of permission, so I can't see how you lump them under contract.
Um, no. Software licenses are one instance of a class of
EUPL v1.1 full text:
European Union Public Licence (EUPL) v1.1
Copyright (c) 2007 The European Community 2007
Preamble
The attached European Union Public Licence (EUPL) has been elaborated
in the framework of IDABC, a European Community
Just in case anyone is interested, I've attached the diff between
versions 1.0 and 1.1. You can also read it online [1]
Greetings,
Miry
[1] http://pastebin.com/f64abf600
--- EUPL-1.0.txt 2009-01-23 13:09:40.0 +0100
+++ EUPL-1.1.txt 2009-01-23 13:15:14.0 +0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-
2009/4/14 Michael Crawford mdcrawf...@gmail.com:
There are actually four licenses to consider. Each is different from
the others in significant ways; it would be a terrible mistake to
choose any of them without fully understanding the consequences of
one's choice:
GPL2 only
GPL2 or any
2009/5/27 Mark Weyer we...@informatik.hu-berlin.de:
This looks very similar to distributing a picture which is a 2D
rendering of a 3D model without distributing the original model. This is
already accepted in the archive, and the reason is that a 2D picture is
its own source, and can serve
2009/8/4 Brian claremont...@gmail:
The smssend package was removed from Debian for the reason stated in bug
#399685.
Have a look at http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Hi,
Have a look at this part: With the exception of content with an
individual readme file, all
content is copyright Platinum Arts LLC and permission is required for
distribution. It is not even valid for non-free without an special permission.
My approach for this package was to package te game
2010/4/5 Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 23:52:45 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 08:11:26PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 12:22:53AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
However, it is my
Hi,
There's some old code I am working on, but which unfortunately is not
supported by upstream anymore. Thus, I've decided to become the new
upstream and make the code evolve myself. The original license says
hat:
Permission to use, copy, and distribute this software and its
documentation
2010/10/15 Magnus Blomfelt magnus.blomf...@gmail.com:
2010/10/15 Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org:
Hi,
Hi Miriam
Hi!
I did some research and I think I managed to find the original author.
A private mail has been sent and it would be good to know how it goes!
Hey, that will be great! Thanks
Hi all,
I'm thinking about building a package for RtMidi [1], as I'm
developing a package of a software that embeds it, and already found
some other packages in the archive doing it. I'm not very keen on
having duplicated code around. In any case, the license [2], a custom
licensed based on MIT,
2011/3/8 Mahyuddin Susanto udi...@ubuntu.com:
Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However,
if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes
it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic
linking to a library? To a
Hi,
A project I'm interested in is considering the The Educational
Community License 1.0 [1]:
---
This Educational Community License (the License) applies
to any original work of authorship (the Original Work) whose
2012/3/17 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org:
Hi,
could anyone help me resolve this license question :
https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca
i'm not smart enough to grasp what the author wants in that case.
Just for the record, the license says:
Copyright 2011 Isaac Z. Schlueter
2013/9/3 Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org
Le Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 10:06:01AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
Excess repetition makes many of us regulars pay less attention to the
topics. I'll mention this specific example, trying not to make it into
an ad-hominem: Francesco has a *great*
As I know (maybe I just didn't found it) there is no final judgement about
the EUPL.
EUPL 1.1 [1] has this clause [2]:
Compatibility clause:
If the Licensee Distributes and/or Communicates Derivative Works or
copies thereof based upon both the Original Work and another work
licensed under a
Hi,
This was quite predictable to happen sometime. Games are a lot about
telling stories, and stories can come in very different flavours. As
we are planning to maybe getting a game into Debian, that has explicit
erotic or sexual contents -I haven't really played it myself, so I
don't really know
2014-03-10 2:44 GMT+01:00 Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org:
For that reason, I would advise not to include this game in Debian (and
not to spend your time on packaging it). But note that I'm not setting
the rules here. If you feel strongly that it adds value to the system,
feel free to explain
2014-03-10 14:48 GMT+01:00 Nils Dagsson Moskopp n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net:
Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org writes:
in the web page, and reading the comments in previous mails. I find
your description of the game very disturbing, and I'm thinking that it
may be even be triggering for some
2014-03-11 17:39 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Jończyk mat.jonc...@o2.pl:
There is a danger, if the Debian project falls prey to a moral panic, that it
will self-censor to the extent of producing a chilling effect upon itself.
This is not a moral panic. A real harm is being done.
According to statistics
2014-03-11 19:40 GMT+01:00 Tobias Hansen than...@debian.org:
Am 11.03.2014 17:54, schrieb Miriam Ruiz:
Right now there is no need to make any decision at all, it is
in the hands of the FTP Masters, and we as a project trust them.
As far as I am aware there is not even the need for the FTP
2014-03-11 20:26 GMT+01:00 Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
in Debian. That doesn't amount to censorship. People who want to
find interesting interactive fiction are probably not going to be
looking for it in our archive.
You mean that we shouldn't package any interactive
2014-03-11 22:23 GMT+01:00 Sam Kuper sam.ku...@uclmail.net:
Now that this conversation has descended into farce, I'm out. I only
hope that if the issue does cease to become moot[1] and Debian decides
to reject Unteralterbach (which, to repeat, I have no opinion about)
the project will not do
2014-03-11 23:34 GMT+01:00 Jo Shields direct...@apebox.org:
I honestly believe that almost none of those of us discusing the game
has even tried it (I haven't at least) and I don't think anyone who
hasn't even tested it can have a solid opinion. As far as I
understand, we're all defining our
2014-03-13 11:17 GMT+01:00 Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de:
This discussion might not be the last one about inclusion of content
(pornography, violence, theory of evolution, bdsm, lgbt or whatever else one
might find offensive) in Debian which is in some way illegal in one or more
2014-03-14 9:59 GMT+01:00 Jo Shields direct...@apebox.org:
*TRIGGER WARNING* in case it wasn't painfully obvious for this thread by
now.
Thanks for the warning. Just for the record, I can confirm that there
has been people already triggered by all this situation. We can't
forget that, as the
2014-03-14 11:30 GMT+01:00 Vincent Cheng vch...@debian.org:
(If replying to me via debian-women or debian-legal, please cc me as
I'm not subscribed to those lists.)
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org wrote:
3) Up to now, there hasn't been an actual proposal
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
