Bug#886606: RFS: pokemmo-installer/1.4.5-1 [ITP] -- Installer and Launcher for the PokeMMO emulator
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 04:21:29AM -0200, Carlos Donizete Froes wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
> I hope I succeeded this time. :)
> > You should have recycled that RFS bug, same for the ITP.. (by e.g retitleing)
> > But, ok, we can work with the new ones.. I've merged the ITP bugs already.
> Sorry, in this part I'm learning, next time I'll pay more attention.
> > There are more changes than this... However,
> > - we need to target contrib. It is not ok to go for main, so please change that back.
> > - the long description: I think something like the last sentence from my
> > propsoal would help to transport the message that this package is not
> > PokeMMO, but I'm not 100% happy with it myself, so I somehow
> > understand that you did not embed it. But I think we need something
> > to underline that the real thing is some other property.
> - d/control
> * Section changed to contrib/games
> * Changed long description: describing more about pokemmo-installer
> > Maybe:
> > "PokeMMO is a product from PokeMMO.eu, please see their
> > website for details and further information."
> I had to make changes separating 'PokeMMO Installer' and 'PokeMMO Client'
I still missing the explicit disclaimer that this is not to be confused with
the game PokeMMO.eu and the launcher is not affilitated with them except
that it is written for the game in mind. At least d/copyright should explain
that (as Chris said: Make d/copyright as verbose as possible.)
(d/copyright Disclaimer: field)
I can't work out a proposal because of time limitations right now, but
pleasu go forward and share your thoughts about it, so we can agree on some
> I added a wiki on GitHub and Salsa about PokeMMO Installer:
> > - another question: The pokemmo.png .. Can you elaborate about the
> > source of the image? The license could be troublesome...
> Removed the official 'PokeMMO Client' logo and created the 'PokeMMO Installer' logo with the added
> FreeArt license.
Good! But.... But the license is not a great choice.
It is not clear if it is acceptable for Debian as free license. I'd recommend
not to use this license but select one from the sets which have ben cleared as
DFSG. Why not using also the GPL for it like the rest of the package? This
would also solve the problem that you did not update d/copyright to reflect the
license of the images... For details about the FreeArt License see and the
thread linked within:
> ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Carlos Donizete Froes [a.k.a coringao]
> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ - https://wiki.debian.org/coringao
> ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ GPG: 4096R/B638B780
> ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀ 2157 630B D441 A775 BEFF D35F FA63 ADA6 B638 B780