Bug#933248: RFS: assaultcube/220.127.116.11-1 [ITA] -- realistic first-person-shooter
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:42:23PM -0300, Carlos Donizete Froes wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
> > I've took a look and I have to say assultcube's license is a nightmere;
> > for me it is far from clear from me what they mean… However, I cannot
> > see a change on the licensing, so I guess the situation is unchanged
> > and that would hint that we are still talking about non-free, at least
> > for the data.
> I agree, there was no change in the license, so I left it as it was in the
> orphaned package. I just organized 'debian/copyright' by adding all licenses
> presented in the game directories.
> > For example, what is source in their definition? I can only assume that
> > they mean the"sources.tar.gz"  on the release tab of their github
> > repo. If that is true, there quite a lots of difference when compared
> > to (what I guess is supposed to be in their terms) the game package
> > labeled "AssaultCube for Linux" 
> The game is being mirrored in an 'experimental' branch , to be played on
> Windows and MacOSX with the updated SDL2 library.
/me confused. The dsc labels it as version 18.104.22.168, which is an
officially released version by upstream [a]. That somehow collided with
"mirrored in an 'experimental' branch" as you wrote above.
Comparing the content of the dsc and the release from [a] shows
differences (more files in the dsc).
So it seems that this is not 22.214.171.124 you are packaging.
And here things become to become complicated againm, as this license is
really a f***up: They say:
- source code is licensed under zlib like license. Ok, but what is
excatly the source? I can only guess that this is , but that guess
needs a released version to work.
- Even the file marked as source () has non-free bits in it, so I
guess it is not valid to say "this is the source".
- the "packaged" file license says that you cannot modify the package,
but says later that you might disect the package and ship the parts
seperately, but only if it has a license attached to it explictily.
Seems so that this is not in the case for every file…
So, I'm sorry, I think I am unable to help on this licensing monster.
I guess the fine people @ debian-legal might be more of an help here...
Or ask upstream for clarifcation. Or you use the same approach as the
old package did: split in engine and data. That has passed ftpmasters at
least, so I guess it is fine.
(What I probably would do is to stick to the released version.)
> With that, I just removed the directory containing prebuilt Windows binary
> sources and some Makefile fixes to create the game binary.
What was the base of the removal?  or where?
> >  has many MiB more files than , so I guess  is not sufficient
> > to play, is it?
> No, this package is the complete game to play. ;)
The dsc has more files in it than …
> > If I'm correct, the problem is that  is "no modification allowed",
> > "non commerical" and they are clear that there are bits in it that may
> > only distributed "unmodified" (in their definition) . So this still
> > looks non-free for me.
> >  https://github.com/assaultcube/AC/archive/v126.96.36.199.tar.gz
> >  h
> > ttps://github.com/assaultcube/AC/releases/download/v188.8.131.52/AssaultCube_v1.2.0
> > .2.tar.bz2
> >  https://assault.cubers.net/docs/license.html
> > together with the README.md on https://github.com/assaultcube/AC
> > PS: On  they mention ./packages/audio/misc/pickup_armour.ogg --
> > as licensed under "Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0", which is
> > unfortunatly a non-free license . This alone makes it non-free.
> > 
> > https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Creative_Commons_Sampling_Plus_.28CC-sampling.2B-.29.2C_v1.0
> Exactly, in this case would the game have to be 'non-free' rather than
At least assaultcube-data needs to go to non-free. The engine could go
to contrib if everything required for it it is free software.
I strongly suggest that you use keep old packaging scheme (two source
packages, assaultcube and assaultcube-data)
I'm not sure at all if putting the data on a git repository would
violate their license. (it is not unmodified distribution then)
Srry, I think I have to throw in towel for that package…
Please seek advice from debian-legal.
>  https://github.com/assaultcube/AC/tree/experimental
> ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Carlos Donizete Froes [a.k.a coringao]
> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Wiki: https://wiki.debian.org/coringao
> ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ GPG: 4096R/B638B780
> ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀ 2157 630B D441 A775 BEFF D35F FA63 ADA6 B638 B780