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

Re: Tremulous packages

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:22:22 +0200 Heretik wrote:

> Hi list,


> I ITP Tremulous for Debian
> (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=363581) and have
> some license concerns.
> I have one source package and three binary packages : tremulous,
> tremulous-data and tremulous-server
> Here are the licenses :
> - The main code is GPL : no problem


> - The datas are CC-share-alike : non-free. They intend to relicense
> them to CC 2.5+ then CC 3 when it will be out though, which will make
> them debian-free.

Not so fast!
Creative Commons 3.0 licenses are *not* yet released, so we cannot know
whether they will be suitable to publish software in a DFSG-free manner.
We will only learn this once they are out.

I strongly recommend trying hard and persuading upstream to relicense in
a DFSG-free manner now, rather than deferring the issue to yet
unspecified timeframes.
Since upstream seems to like a copyleft license for data too, they could
adopt the GNU GPL v2 license for data, as well as for the game engine.
This would instantly solve the issue.

> - There is a not-free-at-all media license exception, but the author
> agreed to change the license to CC as the other medias. He wrote an
> email to the Tremulous maintainer for this, so I think it's ok to say
> it's CC right now. The new relicensing is not included in my source
> archive, but as he gave his agreement, I think I can just remove this
> exception from the license file in my archive.

If you have an e-mail message stating that something is to be considered
relicensed, you should ideally include that message in the package
debian/copyright, near the 'obsolete' license statement, in order to
document the license change.
However, as I stated above: relicensing under a Creative Commons license
is not enough to allow something to enter main.

> - There are some tools needed to compile some of the sources. Here is
> their license :
> """
> The authors of this software are Christopher W. Fraser and
> David R. Hanson.
> Copyright (c) 1991,1992,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998 by AT&T,
> Christopher W. Fraser, and David R. Hanson. All Rights Reserved.
> -----
> Chris Fraser / cwfraser@microsoft.com
> David Hanson / drh@microsoft.com
> $Revision: 145 $ $Date: 2001-10-17 16:53:10 -0500 (Wed, 17 Oct 2001) $
> """
> The parts about not being able to sell it are non-free, I think.

The license you quoted is definitely non-free, because of the many
restrictions it contains: it fails DFSG#1 and DFSG#3, I would say.
You should try contacting the copyright holders (AT&T, Christopher W.
Fraser, and David R. Hanson) and persuading them to relicense lcc in a
DFSG-free manner.

If you fail in doing so, you should try to find a DFSG-free replacement
for lcc.

> I don't intend to package them, but i have to include them in the
> source package. The Makefile, called by the rules file, builds them
> and then uses them to build the game. As they don't appear in the
> binary package, I don't know if it makes the whole non-free of not.

If those tools are need to build your package and cannot be in main,
then your package cannot be in main either, because it Build-Depends on
something that is not in main.
Your package would go in contrib (ignoring for a moment the Creative
Commons problem) and the tools in non-free.

Or else, if you suppress the Build-Depends by putting the tools is the
source package, you have a non-free source, and thus the package cannot
enter main.
In that case your package would go in non-free.

As I said above, the best solutions are a lcc relicensing or finding a
DFSG-free replacement.

> As I have a single source package, and the datas are it in, is it
> right to put the other packages in contrib (if the tools consideration
> permits it) or do I have to make a separate source package for the
> datas (and for the tools maybe) ?

AFAIK, a source package distributed in contrib can only generate binary
packages for contrib.
Likewise for main and non-free.
You cannot cross the archive boundaries and have a non-free binary
package compiled from a contrib source or things like that.

    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp8OLvhnNtDb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: