On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:05:27 -0400 bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 16:24:24 +0200 Denis wrote: > > - We don't know any free games. > > disagreed - we are yet to determine if the license of 'bass' is or is > not acceptable - that is the only reason why scummvm is being > discussed in the first place It depends on what we want.
If we just want a decision on the games, and not to add them to the
list of software that doesn't respect the FSDG we can have each distro
either:
(1) Declare that they don't know where the source code is and exclude
the games.
(2) Suppose that the source code is in the data files. For Drascula,
I've managed to extract data from the archive but it still
contained executable without corresponding source code (and some
other files). So they can rule that game out and suppose that the
other games are in the same situation.
(3) They can exclude the games because they are not built from source.
So far with all the infos we have, (3) is the easiest path, then (1).
If we want to add software to that list of software that doesn't
respect the FSDG, we could suppose (1) and exclude the games because of
"missing source code" which is vague enough to cover the case of source
code that is lost.
If the source code is "found again" inside the archive, we could
start reconsidering the game. This way we don't need to wait for
someone to review the license.
> "is the license of 'bass' acceptable?"
It was not just bass but at least 2 or 3 other games if I recall well.
If you want an easy pick, Drascula is easiest because its content can
be extracted with 'binwalk -e Packet.001' and inside you can clearly
see some executable with missing source code like DRASCULA.COM for
instance. Drascula is/was shipped by at least Guix and Trisquel.
Denis.
pgplVwxnqBLVf.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
