[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Fedora Lost Labyrinth packages completed

Miriam Ruiz wrote:

2008/5/25 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl>:

Hi All,

I'm done packaging Lost Labyrinth for Fedora, I ended up packaging elice,
the engine, the graphics and the sounds all separately. I've done this
because the graphics and esp. the sounds aren't updated as often as the
engie, so this way I can keep the bandwidth needed to update to the latest
versions small

For those interested here are the review requests for the resulting
packages:

* elice - Elice is a PureBasic to c++ translator / compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448310

* lostlabyrinth - Lost Labyrinth is a coffeebreak dungeon crawling game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448311

* lostlabyrinth-sounds - Lost Labyrinth sounds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448312

* lostlabyrinth-graphics - Lost Labyrinth graphics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448313


Hi Hans!! :)

Thanks for this, did you have to add any patches to the original source?



Nope.


The licensing stuff is quite wierd, nothing is said about the license
in any of the source files nor the resources and sound files, and all
I could find is "Open Source (GPL)" in [1] and "GNU General Public
License (GPL)" in [2], which might not be explicit enough for
convincing the ftpmasters (always the bad guys, but in their defense I
must say that if I was in charge of that, I would probably do the
same). I still have doubts about the resources and sounds, as it is
often not taken for granted thay they are released under the GPL even
when the code is.
I agree and I've already mailed upstream to send me a clearer licensing statement by mail, when I have that I'll add the full mail as a license_clarification.txt file to the docs of the packages.. 


Is there any way that upstream could be more explicit about the
license under which is released the code, the sounds and the
resources? The ideal way would be to have a readme file in all of the
tarballs stating that clearly and also a copy of the license. Do you
think there should be a way to get that? Otherwise, maybe just a mail
from them, preferrably GPG-Signed, saying that might be enough.
As said above I've already asked for a mail, dunno if Markus can sign it, but an unsigned one should be fine too. We don't ask for signed readme's or signed .c / . c++ files either and use copyright info from there normally. 

Regards,

Hans


p.s.

There also is the following text in readme.txt:

"Licence: General Public Licence (GPL V2)"
Unfortunately the documentation files are only part of the binary releases, I've made a seperate tarbal with the .txt files myself for the Fedora packages.
Reply to: