Re: source for artwork
On Friday 21 February 2014 23:22:47 Markus Koschany wrote:
> On 20.02.2014 17:04, Simon McVittie wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I had read redeclipse's debian/copyright as saying that its
> > maintainer knows (or at least strongly believes) that a preferred
> > form for modification exists, and that it is not included. If I'm
> > wrong about that, and we are in fact distributing the most
> > modifiable form that the project is aware of, it might well be OK
> > for main. Ask the maintainer and the ftpmasters?
I think that this may actually be the case. Of course, it mostly
depends upon why the comments in the original debian/copyright were put
there, but the data in the upstream svn seems to be the same as in the
debian source.
[...]
> Another reason is my understanding of the current situation. I believe
> this is not an ftpmaster issue because they have already accepted a
> lot of similar packages in main, data that is mostly licensed under
> CC-BY-SA. If a package like FreeOrion is accepted in main, Red
> Eclipse should be there, too. As you have already acknowledged
> yourself in this thread, it is nearly impossible to know whether data
> files such as images are the preferred form of modification. I also
> think this term is rather well understood in the case of software but
> is often the subject of interpretation issues when it comes to
> artwork.
>
> The ftpmasters seem to be aware of this controversy and grant us a
> margin of discretion in regard to artwork and the preferred form of
> modification question.
I am not sure if a "margin of discretion" is even required here.
Indeed, as far as I can tell, for both Red Eclipse and FreeOrion, the
.pngs (for example) are exactly the preferred form that upstream chooses
to make modifications to and so are the source. (Of course, please
correct me if there are some other files around from which the .pngs etc
are generated.)
> I allege that the developers of Red Eclipse don't retain higher
> quality artwork deliberately and that they share everything according
> to their license agreement.
I agree.
[...]
> I therefore ask all team members to voice their opinion and to support
> my proposal to move Red Eclipse to the main section of the Debian
> archive, since it consists of DFSG free software and artwork.
I agree, but (just to be clear) not because I believe that debian should
allow the non-preferred form of modification (I certainly do not believe
this) but rather because, as far as I can tell, this is the preferred
form of modification.
David
Reply to: