-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 20.11.2011 16:32, schrieb Mark de Wever: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:39:25PM +0100, Nils Kneuper wrote: >> 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? > > The way I interpret it we even have to provide it for *every subversion > commit* since our repository is public.
Okay, here we could ask for the clause to be changed to "binary releases" or something like this. So once we have a binary release for a platform ready it also has to be made available via desura within a week. Though if the packager for a platform (like windows) is unavailable and there is no binary for this platform, the binary can't be uploaded into desura either. >> 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. > > I see a problem with this, who has to sign this? What if somebody who works > on Wesnoth decides the reverse engineer their software. (/me remembers the > Bitkeeper fiasco.) Can we be held responsible for that? This term should probably be changed somehow to state that the signing parties won't ask someone to RE the product and won't encourage someone doing it. Since yeah, we can't tell anybody working on the project what they are allowed to do in their remaining free time. >> 3.2) Their API might change, no problem if we basically make no use of >> it inside our code, right? > > I can't see whether or not we are required to, but if we are we're adding > non-GPL code to a GPL project. I think their API stuff is mainly something for achievements and whatnot. Nothing that we would have to implement, so that we can just ignore it. >> 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). > > Also OUTSCH here. Maybe we could ask for a change of 3.6 to state that all rights given are given so by the GPL and that the GPL is to be followed in software distribution. Since the GPL is non-revocable this should basically cover the stuff that desura needs to continue delivering to "customers". >> 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. > > I agree with this assessment. I'm also not fond of the amount of assistance > we might have to provide. What I'd basically like to see is some reference that all software provided by Wesnoth Inc following this agreement is to be made available under the GPL. This way it might be compatible and working, since no relicense is done and rights that desura has with the GPL anyway (if they downloaded it from wesnoth.org themselves) are just stated explicitly. As long as we offer Wesnoth for free via this service there should not be too much of a problem with assistance since then we can still offer to return the payment made for Wesnoth. Maybe this should be added explicitly, that if problems occur and those can't be solved in a "timid" manner the money payed for the program is to be refunded. This would offer us an easy way out of required support that we might be unable to deliver, especially with problems that we are not able to reproduce ourselves. I hope it was correct, that it is possible to talk to desura about the exact terms to be used. The general problem is just that for agreeing with these terms we would require some rights and means that we simply don't have and can't guarantee (level of support, agreements not to RE stuff, relicensing, ...). So once those are somehow handled, it should work nicely. Yes, I think the agreement should be done in the name of "Wesnoth Inc" so that no problem arises when people leave the project. Further comments? Cheers, Nils Kneuper aka Ivanovic -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk7YvGQACgkQfFda9thizwUsKgCcDlJmzbRgs+IT2CUw04yHk8o0 LGwAnjWOtT9A+Ydbn4SDAOwKoj93vzJ6 =PDMm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
