2007/2/9, Matthew Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
What is in the copying.txt is not the CC-by-2.5, it's a summary which
doesn't contain all the problematic clauses. There are two options:
either upstream wanted what's in the copying.txt, in which case
debian-legal recommend asking them to change to expat; or they wanted
the actual CC-by-2.5, which is not DFSG-free and we'd need to convince
them to use expat, GPL or something similar.
Makes sense, though I personally think it'd be simpler for people to
understand the game's licensing if they just GPL'ed it all. :)
It's unclear to me why the songs aren't redistributable. Are the
copyright holders of the songs also upstream? or are they a third party?
Not sure. I think they are either upstream or upstream's friends.
The explanation Miriam had seems rather odd---if they copyright holders
agree to licence them the agency which was linked to should have nothing
to do with it. OTOH, if they are using songs which aren't original by
them, there could be a problem.
What explanation? What agency?
Jason Spiro: computer consulting with a smile.
I also provide training and spyware removal services for homes and businesses.
Call or email for a FREE 5-minute consultation. Satisfaction guaranteed.
+1 (416) 781-5938 / Email: email@example.com / MSN: firstname.lastname@example.org