Re: Grab bag of questions
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 04:19:19AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >If they're the typical .h files, /usr/include/acc would be as good a place
> >as any.
> They're not, they're .acs files. I think I'm going to rename the package
What are .acs files when they're at home? General data goes in either
/usr/share or /usr/lib, depending on the architecture-specificity.
> >The contents of debian/copyright would be "the material in this package has
> >been illegally copied from http://zdoom.doomworld.com/. I'm expecting the
> >process server any minute."
> >Why? Because absent an explicit licence to make copies, *any*
> >work has the protection of copyright, which grants to the author of the
> >the exclusive right to make copies. Anyone else making a copy of the work
> >is in breach of copyright laws.
> I've sent the author a message about this on his forums, I can't imagine
> he'd have a problem with it. I asked him for the official copyright
> statement, hopefully he'll get back to me soon.
Once he gives permission, you're home free. If I were you, I'd ask that he
put a specific copyright statement on the site somewhere.
> >Get acc and zeth-doc removed ASAP. I don't know about the others.
> >Certainly, anything released under the "EULA" is non-distributable.
> I don't see an obvious way to do this automatically, or I would. I'll
> see if somebody in #debian-mentors can get rid of it. The other two
There's a few e-mail addresses scattered around mentors.debian.net.
> >Nothing in there grants anyone the right to make copies for anyone else.
> >And since the licence mentions Activision a million times, I presume that
> >the copyright holder of record is Activision, which means that a notice
> >Ravensoft is kind of pointless. If Activision licenced the software to
> >Ravensoft, or sold the copyrights to them, then that should be noted
> >somewhere useful.
> The code is originally Copyright Raven, not Activision. Activision is
> only mentioned in the EULA. Nowhere in the actual source is Activision
> mentioned at all. But if I can't get a satisfactory response from Raven
> fairly soon, I'll see what Activision has to say, not that I expect them
> to be any sort of help.
Weird. You'd think that with all of the money that companies have to throw
around, they'd be able to employ a lawyer capable of telling them how to
properly licence their code...