On 17.12.2012 13:08, Martin Erik Werner wrote: > 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. > Thanks for the clarification. So the requirement to ship all sources is the blocker but the definition of "source" in regard to game data seems to be a grey area. > 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 :) > That would be great. I'm very interested to know what media content is considered non-free at the moment. Thanks to Bas by the way for sharing his point of view. I understand this is a very controversial topic and i don't expect that the participants on this list will solve it alone. Nevertheless perhaps we can reach a compromise within the games team or at least define the requirements for certain kind of game data so it's easier for starters to make a contribution and to avoid future confrontations. Regards, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature