Hello, On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Gerfried Fuchs <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What's the deal with nikki's game data? According to the LICENSE file > it's covered under CC-BY-SA-3.0, but the following discussion about > preferred source format makes it sound like it has been put under GPL > restrictions, but I don't see that? How come, am I missing something > here? Did something get mixed in someone's thoughts? > Yes, Nikki's art is under CC-BY-SA 3. I assumed from this discussion that "source has to be editable" is in one of Debian's guidelines and that packagers have recently started actually applying this to art/assets/audio/images new software without radically throwing all old already-package software out which don't adhere to that. > I am with Iwan here and see no issues with accepting the wav files as a > good source for the sounds. If that isn't acceptable then we are in > much bigger troubles and should pull a LOT of packages from the archive, > not block nikki from entering, it would just look strange and lying to > our own rules. > > xcf is definitely as much source as you can get for an image, and for > pixel art png is just as good because it's lossless the original. I > don't see any issue here neither. > > There is nothing specific to that because actually after a vote a few > years ago everything within Debian is considered under the umbrella of > software, there is nothing special when it comes to game/audio/image/3d > model data with respect to the DFSG. As long as all rights that the > DFSG require are granted there is no issue. > > Enjoy, > Rhonda > P.S.: If we reject packages with flattened images/encoded music files > from the pool it will be reduced by a huge amount, starting off with > all povray rendered images or photoshopped ones, and probably all > mp3/ogg files, though probably only those where upstream was silly > enough to choose GPL for its licensing. Cheers Iwan
