-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 17.11.2011 19:49, schrieb Derek: > I am willing to do all the work with getting it on there and maintaining > it if this is okay with everyone. > > I've looked into the technical details involved. They make it sound very > automatic (almost too good to be true). Apparently it's as simple as > pointing their packaging tool at a directory that contains the program and > all necessary data. It will detect the required libraries and take care of > making sure those are on users' systems when they download Wesnoth. > > It also compares this package with previous versions and automatically > makes patches so that users won't have to redownload the entire game each > time. This is a highly requested feature of Wesnoth, and now we would have > it for both Windows and Linux.
Okay, for the Windows binary this would most likely just be a case of "unpack it and let their magic tools run", for Linux you would first have to create *static* binaries of the releases. Those don't exist (yet) and only existed ages ago. Yes, distribution specific packages like eg the Debian binaries can't be used for this. > It lets games have multiple "channels" that users can subscribe to for > updates (would work great with our stable/development branch system). Possibly sounds like a sane and possible approach, not 100% sure though how it actually works or if it would be better to have "more" games in there (aka "Battle for Wesnoth 1.8.x", "Battle for Wesnoth 1.9.x", ...) and those games being automatically updated as systems like steam and the likes handle it (meaning just using their patch system and having the latest release of that game be the correct and active one, basically enforcing updates). > There don't appear to be any direct conflicts with the GPL, but Noy is > concerned about point 3.1a. It allows Desura to keep Wesnoth in their > system even if we stop supporting them. The language is also a bit vague > though and might allow them to do other things. That is where the problems really start. Okay, I will now try to write out the possible issues I see with those terms of agreement. Yes, I agree with boucman that Wesnoth Inc. should be the one doing the agreement if it actually is possible in a GPL compatible way. One problem here is that we have no agreement with our contributors transferring "ownership" of the code to Wesnoth Inc. This basically results in Wesnoth Inc. having no way to relicense our stuff, it has to stay in the license under which it is given to us. Many other projects follow rules of handing over ownership, like eg frogatto does. Now lets have a look at the explicit terms (yes, I am no lawyer and/or GPL expert, I can just state my opinion of what I *think* might apply and be read in which way): 1) This just defines some general terms, no problem there. 2) This basically states Desuras position regarding Wesnoth Inc and the services that Desura provides. The important point basically is "2.3" where it speaks about Desura only getting the rights expressly set out in the agreement. Might be problematic since we only have GPL software and we might interpret giving them the "packages" under the GPL which would mean that they do have the same "responsibility" that the GPL states. 3) Okay, this one is problematic since it speaks about our rights and obligations, so I will have to comment on sub points. 3.1.a) Here we grant Desura a license. Considering that we can only grant under the GPL since we can't relicense we have to explicitly follow the GPL terms here! in 'i' they are allowed to continue storing and distributing the stuff even after we cancel our agreement with them. This is IMO okay with the GPL since it can't be revoked either and sure they can continue to distribute the stuff we gave them under the GPL (since this is the *ONLY* license under which we can hand it out!). IMO the part 'ii' does not really apply since this is probably a clause for programs with monthly fees like eg many MMORPG. Wesnoth would possibly one "game" per series and that's it, so subscriptions would not happen. 3.1.b) Okay, all of our material can be used in their ads. No idea if this is actually fine with the GPL since once they use it in their ad, the ad itself would be GPL, too (derived work clause!). 3.1.c) Okay, we are not allowed to hand out our account to outsiders, sounds sane and valid. 3.1.d) OUTSCH! That one is possibly really problematic. It is about the support and I don't know how we can possibly handle this one. We have to promptly respond to comments, queries and complaints (which we already do in our own forums and bug tracker) but there is no specification where those comments reach "us". So they probably think about their forums and boards, meaning that we would have to monitor an external source for issues. We also have to provide tech support which can be problematic. Is providing tech support (in weird cases!) to say "then don't use this program, your system is simply borked!"? We also have to issue patches (though we basically do this during our normal development) 3.1.e) This one states that once we enter the agreement we *have* to continue supporting our binaries with *all* patches and updates in a very timid manner (7 days). So what happens if I release when gambit is on 3 weeks holidays? 3.1.f) We have to follow their policies. This one does not really state too much but yeah, sounds okayish. 3.1.g) Okay, no RE. 3.1.h) In 'i.a' we have to make sure that the description of the game is correct, sounds possible. On the other hand 'i.b' is a strange one that I don't understand 100%. The main problem I see there is "content rating" like it is eg required in Germany. Here content rating is done by some state based institution and *not* by the publisher, so what to enter regarding rating? I don't know what else might be covered by this clause, though it can probably easily break our necks. In regards to 'ii': what about stats upload (code)? This would count under the formulated wording. Was this really completely removed? If we (re)added it, we would have to make sure that the users are informed about this feature, too (informed probably being more than just displaying it in the tips of the day box). 3.2) Their API might change, no problem if we basically make no use of it inside our code, right? 3.3) No problem, they are allowed to change their website/product placement. 3.4) We get no rights to their system, fine. 3.5) We have to keep the bills. In case that we make it available for free, this would not be an issue, right? 3.6) OUTSCH! A big one at that. This one states that we actually have the right to relicense the stuff since we warrant in that one that we have the rights to grant the rights under the agreement, which might not be the case. Yes, I am not sure if those suffice for the GPL, since we only give them the right to continue distributing but don't force them to give the same rights to those they give the prog to (and other similar stuff). 4) This one is about payment. If we don't charge for the program then it should not be relevant, right? 5) We have to keep the agreement confidential. Ups, failed, this is a public ML. What to do now? ;) 6) We might have to provide warranty. A "refund" should always be possible, right? Especially if the program is made available for free... Beside they also state that their systems are no backup systems, so any data there might get lost. 7) The stuff regarding when this agreement terminates. Yeah, the usual business stuff. 8) Where to handle disputes. Nothing too exciting there besides us having a "senior representative with authority to settle the dispute" available. Is every core dev qualified for this? 9) The lovely closing terms. Yes, as I pointed out there are several issues listed in '3' that are problematic for us and that can't be met without relicensing which we don't have the required rights to do. Relicensing would require asking every contributor if this was okay (and possibly directly asking for a transfer of ownership of the code to Wesnoth Inc.) which was once upon the time deemed impossible. So yeah, I fear that we as Wesnoth Inc. can simply not follow this agreement due to our "products" strict license terms. Would be nice to get some feedback and comments regarding the points I mentioned above. Without them being answered I fear that distribution via Desura is currently not possible for Wesnoth. Cheers, Nils Kneuper aka Ivanovic -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk7GQ+0ACgkQfFda9thizwUuPwCfVa9shGdsdty137v+ABYCBVAP 9+IAnirbu+Y9kZggNZSr2pj/g0PnMORI =8/6e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
