On Sun, 2012-12-16 at 12:12 +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > On Sat, 15. Dec 17:41 Vincent Cheng <vincentc1208@gmail.com> wrote: > [...] > > So in summary...contrary to what you'd expect, packages that are > > suitable for main is not defined by what's in the DFSG or Policy, but > > by 2 other things instead: > > - how your sponsor DD defines "source" > > - whether or not the ftpmasters find the above definition acceptable > > I agree with you here and i also think that's the status quo at the > moment. > > I always thought Red Reclipse was in non-free because of Red Eclipse's > mark license which had required to rename the game to Blue Eclipse or > something. Martin, perhaps you can write a short comment about it in the > copyright license and point out why you decided to move Red Eclipse to > non-free and what people have to do to make it acceptable for main? > No, the trademark license/policy of Red Eclipse is something that was fixed in the long process of debianizing it, (borrowing a template from The Document Foundation and with considerable hints and tips from the SFLC), the main binary package which is in contrib uses both the name and the logo under the Red Eclipse Trademark Policy (see http://redeclipse.net/wiki/Trademark_Policy ) and has been accepted by the FTP Masters. It might be a good idea to flesh out the "Why non-free" explanation a bit, indeed, I'll see if I can come up with something that's not an essay for a future upload :) -- Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner@gmail.com>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part