Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
> Steven Fuerst wrote:
>
> > this later license is pretty much overruled by Ben and James joining
> > into the angband opensource initiative. (Ben Harrison did a large
> > rewrite of the code several years ago.) The only real problem is with
> > the truely ancient code and copywrited text in the game - which comes
> > from Robert A. Koeneke and falls under the Moria license above. ;-)
>
> What does "pretty much overruled" mean?
Basically, the second license quoted above is ammended now by the people who
wrote it. Only the original Moria license remains a problem. (Which is why
I only quoted that one in the first email.)
> It sounds like you're saying
> that because Ben Harrison rewrote a lot of code, therefore there is only
> a relatively small quantity of the original Koeneke code remaining, so
> let's just pretend it's not a problem.
Um - no I'm not saying that.
> Sorry, it's still a problem if
> it's still in the code base.
Which is what I mentioned above... along with the part about it taking years
to replace. ;-)
> Besides, as I pointed out earlier, even the
> revised license as you quoted it is not OSD-compatible, much less
> DFSG-compatible, so it sounds like you have to replace a lot more than
> just the Koenecke code to be able to change to a proper open-source
> license.
Yes - both old licenses are bad. Which is why there exists the angband
opensource initiative to replace them. One down, one to go. ;-)
>
> > Which is why it is in non-free...
>
> Exactly. In a way, this whole sub-thread seems to have drifted
> off-topic; the issue isn't whether Zangband is "free" or not, but
> whether Debian should continue maintaining a "non-free" section on its
> own mirrors. The merits of Zangband, and whether or not it is "free",
> are irrelevant to that.
Well... it sort of is on topic. These old programs were created before the
concept of 'open source' was formed. However, they were made and maintained
with the same philosophy, and anyone may lookup old and new versions of the
codebase without too much of a problem. (Google is your friend) However,
since the original authors tended to be students of computer science, not law
- the resulting licenses these programs are under are not optimal under any
stretch of the imagination.
Basically, I'm trying to describe a third class of software. Things that were
made before truely 'free' software existed, but yet are 'open', and have
remained so for decades. This software is not closed in any way, and it
supports a rather large community of people who modify it at will via the
internet.
This old software doesn't fit nicely into the mold that was created long after
it was made. Yet it somehow manages to capture some of the spirit of the
revolution that I believe it helped to form. Why shouldn't debian continue
to support these rare pioneering works?
Steven
Reply to: