Re: Should sauerbraten-wake6 be part of main?
On 24/02/14 08:56, Paul Wise wrote:
> For Debian purposes, I would argue that if Debian users have access to
> the same artefacts as upstream then DFSG item 2 is satisfied
[...]
> The most recent warzone2100 tarball is a GPL violation
I think this touches on an important distinction to make when evaluating
suitability for the archive, particularly the non-main archive areas:
To be in main or contrib, packages need enough source to satisfy (the
Debian project's consensus interpretation of) the DFSG's requirements.
To be in main, contrib or non-free, packages additionally need enough
source to satisfy their own license's requirements (which vary from
"none required" to "complete source", depending on their own license).
Red Eclipse and sauerbraten-wake6 are an easier situation than OpenArena
here, because the question of whether they are DFSG-compliant is
orthogonal to the question of whether they are validly licensed: their
art licenses are sufficiently permissive that not having the preferred
form for modification might be a DFSG violation, but at least it isn't a
license violation.
For OpenArena, because the art license is the GPL (which is not a great
license for art, because it was really designed for compiled code, where
source vs. binary is more clear-cut), if a more preferred form for
modification exists and we don't ship it, strictly speaking it can't be
redistributed at all. (I think the amount of source tracking done by
upstream while making releases indicates that in practice they are
vanishingly unlikely to object, though.)
S
Reply to: