[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Kerkerkruip



Dannii Willis <curiousdannii@gmail.com> writes:

> (Replying out of order)
>
> On 13 October 2014 10:06, Nils Dagsson Moskopp <
> nils@dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote:
>
>> From <https://github.com/i7/kerkerkruip/blob/master/tools/travis_build>
>> it seems there exist build dependencies, meaning Kerkerkruip depends on:
>>   • ni — a compiler that translates Inform 7 into Inform 6 code
>>   • inform6 — a compiler for Inform 6 code that produces a story file
>>   • cBlorb — a story file compiler that produces a gblorb archive
>
>
>
> The Inform 7 developers have released a package for Debian Wheezy. I
>> think this would be a native package? <http://inform7.com/download/>
>>
>> Dannii, Victor, as developers of Kerkerkruip, do you think the Inform 7
>> developers have released enough code so that it is possible to package
>> it for Debian? If so, do you think this would be easy or hard to do it?
>>
>
> Inform 7 is unfortunately still closed source. (Hopefully it will be opened
> in the future. The developer has promised this.) If Kerkerkruip was
> accepted into Debian, it would have to go into contrib, according to the
> policy manual 2.2.2
> <https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html>. If I understand
> the policies correctly it would be allowable for a contrib package's
> Makefile to download and install Inform 7.

I would package a game having non-free assets (pictures, audio), but I
will not package a game having non-free executable code. So I will not
try to package Kerkerkruip as long as Inform 7 stays non-free software.

Proprietary executable code projects the power of its developers. Code
can betray your expectations, break your assumptions. Even proprietary
non-executable assets, OTOH, will never threaten to stab you and, in
fact, cannot speak. Proprietary game assets for free software game
engines can be gradually replaced with minimal compatibility woes.

I have installed ldraw-parts, for example. It may be non-free, but it is
only a collection of 3D LEGO parts in ASCII text files. The software
that needs it – leocad – conforms to the free software definition.

While I can understand if others believe the promise of the Inform 7
developers, I think it would be unwise to believe anyone regarding
similar statements without any set dates. Let me illustrate why:

• “Anne Frank”, developer of “Bernd und das Rätsel um Unteralterbach”,
  had a release roadmap: The web site said that approximately 6 months
  after the binary release, a GPL source code release would follow. She
  told me that this was so people would have to play the game themselves
  instead of reading source code. It did happen – only a few days late.

• “notch”, developer of “Minecraft”, wrote he will release source code
  of his game, “Once sales start dying and a minimum time has passed”:
  <http://web.archive.org/web/20121014094057/https://minecraft.net/game>
  Turns out he did not stay true to his words, writing only ”I’m aware
  this goes against a lot of what I’ve said in public. I have no good
  response to that.”: <http://notch.net/2014/09/im-leaving-mojang/>

This issue is about commitment: Anne did present a statement that was
falsifiable, just by observing the web site of her game on a specific
date in the future. notch did not – leaving the truth of his statement
in limbo until he finally (and, to me, unsurprisingly) chose to lie.

(I am aware that Unteralterbach has been discussed, but I think the
example fits very well. Please do not discuss the game any further.)

Therefore, if the Inform 7 developers do publish a date for a complete
source release, I could be willing to trust them. AFAIK they have not.

> These do not seem to be packaged in Debian testing:
>> > $ for binary in ni inform6 cBlorb; do command-not-found $binary; done
>> > ni: command not found
>> > inform6: command not found
>> > cBlorb: command not found
>
>
> Inform 6 is in Debian already, under package name "inform". It is currently
> marked as non-free, probably because it includes a bunch of libraries with
> unclear licences. It should really be broken into three packages: the
> compiler, the standard library, and additional libraries. The compiler and
> the standard library are both available under a DFSG-compatible Licence.
> The Debian package is also quite old. If you still want something to work
> on Nils, maybe that would be a better option!
>
> cBlorb is not currently in Debian, but it is open source.

Think you for both of these clarifications. They will certainly be
relevant when / if the full source code for Inform 7 is released.

-- 
Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann
<http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net>

Attachment: pgpTazPOhJwSI.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: