Hi, On 11.03.2014 03:54, Bas Wijnen wrote: [...] >> And now compare your game with Red Eclipse. Gfpoken, free or non-free, >> what do you think? > > I think gfpoken is clearly free. Since I still don't know what files > we're talking about for Red Eclipse, I don't know about it. >>> What sort of problems are the reason it isn't in main? >> >> I guess you should take a look at Martin's comments in debian/copyright >> of the redeclipse-data package and compare the data with other packages >> in main. > > He just writes that he thinks a lot is missing. But what? Blender > models? I fully agree that those are source. Audacity files or xcf > files? I'm fine with accepting wav or png files instead, in most cases. We are getting closer. debian/copyright of redeclipse-data basically claims that for all png/jpg files xcf files are required, all models need blend files and all ogg files "need the original samples". Even gfpoken would fail this requirement since e.g you don't provide xcf files for your png images. Everyone has to decide and investigate for him- or herself if Red Eclipse is suitable for main or if it should stay in non-free due to this reasoning. I believe we don't need polls or wiki pages for that. [...] >> - What do you consider a practical solution? >> - What is source for artwork in your opinion? [...] >> - What guidelines would you suggest? First of all I believe we agree that we need to differentiate between different forms of artwork. In my opinion raster images are modifiable and thus source. The same goes for ogg files. I agree that player models should be accompanied with e.g. blend or md2 files which appears to be the case here. In any case accepting png or ogg files as source doesn't mean that we should not strive for vector images or audacity files. Of course we ship the latter if available but we shouldn't move a game to non-free if they are absent. My first draft for guidelines: ============================== 1. Assume good faith We are dealing here with open source / free software / libre projects. They aren't always perfect but projects like Red Eclipse, which release assets under libre licenses and sustain a community acting in the same spirit, deserve a credit of trust. If the following suggestions don't help with finding an answer for "what is source", then please take a look at this point again. 2. Talk with upstream The best approach to find out about upstream's intentions is to talk to them. 3. Definition of source for different kinds of digital art We add an appendix and define for the most common art assets what would be a reasonable form for modifications. Since it seems we can agree on raster images as a reasonable form for modifications, I believe we can find consensus for other assets too. That should cover most games in the archive already. Non-exhaustive list of files that may be acceptable: Raster images (png,jpg,gif,bmp), Music files (wav, ogg, xm) Models (blend, md2, md3, obj) 3D Models and everything that gets rendered is a different story. However I would argue that a rendered image can be the source as well. It very much depends on the game itself. 4. Talk about your game: special cases should be discussed on debian-devel-games We should find solutions on a case-by-case basis for complex games and/or rare games with special requirements. 5. When game data should be in non-free A good reason for moving a game to non-free is when the creators of the game's artwork refuse to share a higher form and do so deliberately, say they sell the game with vector images but provide only jpg files both in the source tarball and in the VCS. So far for the moment. Regards, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature