On 25.02.2014 02:38, Paul Wise wrote: [...] >> I wouldn't mind to mirror this data or upload a second tarball with >> additional source files. However I think we should find a balance >> between providing every source file that upstream provides and not >> overworking Debian's infrastructure. > > I personally believe the DFSG requires us to distribute the source no > matter how big it is. The data.debian.org idea could help mitigate the > size issue though, once the ftp team finally implement it. I agree with the general idea of distributing everything that is also provided by upstream. Nevertheless my perception is that the status quo is a different one because there are size constraints. I'm also not totally convinced that it is really necessary to ship, e.g. flac files that are often 6-7 times larger than ogg files, if upstream ships the latter in the release tarball but only provides the former in the VCS. Providing information in README.source and linking to the flac files is then a reasonable alternative IMO. > Dropping the image would mean that the image for the Large Civilian > Vessel License wouldn't show up so probably not a big deal, not sure > if we would need to put in a blank replacement or not... I would drop the file and replace it with a transparent png or placeholder png, if this is really the only reason why Naev can't be packaged for main. > We could do what Fedora did and just ship the package in main but I > don't believe that would be acceptable to the ftp-masters if they knew > the situation. I expect we could sneek it past them pretty easily > though. This was already explained in another thread. I think images created with non-free tools can be licensed under a free license such as CC-BY-SA. The resulting image is then free and this file becomes the source. >> I think as long as the resulting image is freely licensed and in a >> modifiable form and the rest of Naev is also free software, we should >> find a compromise to allow users to enjoy the game, to work with the >> sources and to give them a chance to resolve the remaining issues. I >> think that's what DFSG 4 reminds us to do. Trying to solve this issue >> alone will probably take far too long. > > I assume you mean SC 4 rather than DFSG 4. Not sure what you are > suggesting here though. Yes, I mean SC 4 "Our priorities are our users and free software". Debian is also some sort of "multiplicator". It's often more constructive to perceive the free software world not as maintainers vs. upstream but to find a way to make free software available to as many people as possible and let them help to make the whole thing perfect. >> Agreed but you can't hope for educating all upstream developers. You can >> take a radical stance and stop shipping warzone2100 or you can find a >> compromise or simply let the user decide. > > Indeed, but we should at least try. Cultural change doesn't happen > overnight. I never uploaded the videos in the first place, since I > wasn't confident with the situation at all. I would suggest to concentrate our efforts on projects that are exemplary role models in creating free games and promote them. It seems more worthwhile to me to work with people who share the same ideas instead of trying to force my ideas on others. I believe that Debian is a way to multiply ideas and to connect users of free software with developers of free software. If I can show that projects exist which already set examples for creating free artwork and games and that it is doable, it is more likely that I can convince others to try the same. In short: Think positive, promote the good ones, don't waste too much time on the bad ones and encourage users to change those "bad" upstreams by becoming a developer or art creator themselves. Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature