Fwd: Re: game: redeclipse
Sometimes... My email client...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: game: redeclipse
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 03:04:54 +0000
From: Arand Nash <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Paul Wise <email@example.com>
On 22/03/11 00:03, Paul Wise wrote:
Ugh, yet another game engine fork with other embedded code copies.
Doesn't look like the license gives us permission to recompress the
data and the redistribute that, "... redistribute or recompress...". I
would suggest you ask them to fix that since it seems pointless to be
able to recompress but not redistribute the result.
That whole section you quote is really in conflict with the claimed
zlib and CC-BY-SA licenses. Do they want it to be "open source" or
not????? Removing it might put the packages in main as long as the
license document you pointed to is accurate on the "all content ... is
"open source" friendly" point. I very much doubt that there is not a
bit of non-free code hiding somewhere. At the very least for it to go
into main, you will need to remove the logo: "[CC-BY-SA] ... does not
apply to the Red Eclipse logo", which is similar to what happened with
the Firefox/Iceweasel case.
The trademark bit is redundant, IIRC trademark law does not restrict
the activities allowed by that section.
"... redistribute or recompress..."
is most definitely a wording error, this should be easily fixed.
There are indeed several non-free items, ranging from CC-*-NC to All
Rights Reserved (a particular wincompat.h item, which is unnecessary,
but removing would mean modifying...)
The "all content...open source friendly" mention is clearly non-true, so
I am simply ignoring that.
The way I am interpreting the license:
If you want to redistribute the data which would otherwise be
undistributable, you would need to do so under the "gratis-ware" clause
and include everything unchanged.
The client/server/enet code would be *possible* to distribute separately
under a Zlib/Expat license provided the name "Red Eclipse" or the logo
is not used.
As of now I guess the data would need to be given special permission in
order to be redistributed in a packaged version (which I presume is hard
to do without changing it, regardless of what the license says about
"recompress...deb"). This I have already been told is OK, by upstream.
Basically that I as their "For the sake of argument" "release manager"
Would be allowed to release my packaging (i.e. modified version) under
the same terms as that of the upstream version.
I guess that this might at least fulfill requirements for non-free?
Am I correct in any of these points?