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

Re: RFS: teeworlds

After having a heated debate with matricks and another developer void_ on the teeworlds IRC channel, they are unwilling to change/remove point 4, but brought up (as it has been here) that there are already packages in main with similar clauses.

As other people mentioned here, it is *technically* DFSG compliant, and really all this debate has just been about semantics, and I'd avoid bringing it up again with the copyright holder (matricks) as he stated, he's spent more time arguing license semantics than developing the game, and threatened to close source it.

As it stands, I see no reason for this package not to be included in main, referring to:

"I still don't feel that it's DFSG-free, but if there are already
packages in the archive with similar clauses, ftpmasters will probably
consider it DFSG-free. It's OK for me, I don't consider it such a
serious issue as to arguing its inclusion in main, I was just curious
about whether it was considered free enough or not."


"Talked to Jörg Jaspert about that (you need to do something during work
time, don't you?), and this clause is indeed free (since it's so
ridiculous easy to circumvent^W fullfill).  So for the sake of gaming,
bundle it with any kind of script, and be done with it."

If there are any other issues, please email me back.

Thanks for your time,
Jack Coulter

Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:16 AM, Jack Coulter <jscinoz@gmail.com> wrote:

I've spoken again to matricks, he's stated that in the next release, he'll
be changing the license slightly, it will still remain free, but he's going
to clarify the last point.

Please ask him to just drop it, since it is useless and isn't in the
spirit of free software. Also licence proliferation is bad.

Aside from that, is this package suitable for inclusion? Are there any
changes I need to make?

I suggest joining the Debian Games Team, adding your package there and
helping out with other games (we need more contributors).

Reply to: