On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Gerfried Fuchs
<rhonda@deb.at> wrote:
What's the deal with nikki's game data? According to the LICENSE file
it's covered under CC-BY-SA-3.0, but the following discussion about
preferred source format makes it sound like it has been put under GPL
restrictions, but I don't see that? How come, am I missing something
here? Did something get mixed in someone's thoughts?
Yes, Nikki's art is under CC-BY-SA 3.
I assumed from this discussion that "source has to be editable" is in one of Debian's guidelines and that packagers have recently started actually applying this to art/assets/audio/images new software without radically throwing all old already-package software out which don't adhere to that.
I am with Iwan here and see no issues with accepting the wav files as a
good source for the sounds. If that isn't acceptable then we are in
much bigger troubles and should pull a LOT of packages from the archive,
not block nikki from entering, it would just look strange and lying to
our own rules.
xcf is definitely as much source as you can get for an image, and for
pixel art png is just as good because it's lossless the original. I
don't see any issue here neither.
There is nothing specific to that because actually after a vote a few
years ago everything within Debian is considered under the umbrella of
software, there is nothing special when it comes to game/audio/image/3d
model data with respect to the DFSG. As long as all rights that the
DFSG require are granted there is no issue.
Enjoy,
Rhonda
P.S.: If we reject packages with flattened images/encoded music files
from the pool it will be reduced by a huge amount, starting off with
all povray rendered images or photoshopped ones, and probably all
mp3/ogg files, though probably only those where upstream was silly
enough to choose GPL for its licensing.
Cheers
Iwan