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

Bug#933248: RFS: assaultcube/ [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" [1] 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" [2]
> The game is being mirrored in an 'experimental' branch [1], to be played on
> Windows and MacOSX with the updated SDL2 library.

/me confused. The dsc labels it as version, 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 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 [1], but that guess
  needs a released version to work.
- Even the file marked as source ([1]) 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.)

[a] https://github.com/assaultcube/AC/releases/tag/v1.2.0.2

> 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? [1] or where?

> > [2] has many MiB more files than [1], so I guess [1] is not sufficient
> > to play, is it?
> No, this package is the complete game to play. ;)	

The dsc has more files in it than [1]…

> > If I'm correct, the problem is that [2] is "no modification allowed", 
> > "non commerical" and they are clear that there are bits in it that may
> > only distributed "unmodified" (in their definition) [3]. So this still
> > looks non-free for me. 
> > 
> > [1] https://github.com/assaultcube/AC/archive/v1.2.0.2.tar.gz
> > [2] h
> > ttps://github.com/assaultcube/AC/releases/download/v1.2.0.2/AssaultCube_v1.2.0
> > .2.tar.bz2
> > 
> > [3] https://assault.cubers.net/docs/license.html
> > together with the README.md on https://github.com/assaultcube/AC
> > 
> > 
> > PS: On [3] they mention ./packages/audio/misc/pickup_armour.ogg --
> > as licensed under "Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0", which is
> > unfortunatly a non-free license [4]. This alone makes it non-free.
> > 
> > [4] 
> > 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
> 'contrib'?

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.

> [1] https://github.com/assaultcube/AC/tree/experimental
> Thanks!
> -- 
> ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 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


Reply to: