On 22.02.2014 15:28, Martin Erik Werner wrote: [...] > There are several packages currently in Debian main which has the exact > issues of "secondary sources" described above, and my impression is that > the attention to this has been raised lately, and that new packages fall > under much more heavy scrutiny (at least withing the Games Team, I can't > really make guesses for the ftpmasters) than some packages that are > already accepted in Debian. I suppose you got the message in this thread that there are other people who would support you if you maintained Red Eclipse as part of this team in Debian main and I encourage you to go this way. > But I also know that several game packages in Debian does a very nice > job of keeping proper sources, and hence, it's not an unpractical goal to > strive for. (It's just something that I have not felt being worthwhile > doing for Red Eclipse in particular.) If we would really enforce the same requirements on all games in the archive, we lost almost all of them, since nobody is able to answer the question what is "the preferred form" for artwork. And as Rhonda pointed out correctly, this term is related to the GPL not CC-BY-SA. Your last sentence sounds as if you feared additional work by doing the right thing. Please fear not. But leaving a free game with free artwork in non-free because it is easier to maintain (meaning that nobody cared before) is a form of opportunism that follows the route of least resistance. I think that acquiring the best possible form of artwork is an excellent goal and we should really strive for it. See my other remarks in this thread about promoting such excellent packages. However this goal is unrelated to the issue at hand, the question whether redeclipse-data is fit for Debian main or not. The license gives you all the rights to improve this data package but currently nobody else is able to benefit from your package because it is not part of Debian. It is just kindly hosted by Debian's infrastructure but nothing more. [...] > I myself is somewhat torn about the whole thing, since I can both see > the "noble goal" and "limited usefulness" sides of the whole thing. But > looking at it from a Debian perspective, I feel that maybe Debian should > rather be taking the "noble goal" standpoint here? Keeping free software and artwork in non-free does not serve the greater good but it would be noble of you to change that. :-) Cheers, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature