Opened 10 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

#946 closed change (wontfix)

Find a licence for the current sound files which is acceptable to Debian

Reported by: magnate Owned by: takkaria
Milestone: Triage Keywords: debian blocker
Cc:

Description

The current wording is

"The sounds are freeware, whatever that means".

This has been rejected by Debian as insufficiently specific:

"Hi Maintainer,

rejected: "The sounds are freeware, whatever that means":

Erm, yes. What does it mean? Freeware is such a fuzzy word that it
basically gives you no right besides "it doesn't cost you", but thats not what main is about. You have to clarify this."

We have several options:

  1. Simply place the sound files under a DFSG licence (GPL, or whichever versions of CC are allowed) - this is simplest, but carries a small risk of someone objecting. Very small risk, IMO.
  1. Remove the sounds from the Debian package altogether. Please see #919 for my ambition to provide Dubtrain's sounds as a separate package. I think this will be non-free because of his choice of CC licence, but it's worth double-checking this.
  1. Leave the Debian package in non-free with its current sounds. IMO this would be a major disappointment after the huge community effort to make it free.

I would suggest the first option, defaulting to the second if people are very risk-averse. Views welcome.

Change History (4)

comment:1 in reply to: ↑ description ; follow-up: Changed 10 years ago by ajps

Replying to magnate:

I would suggest the first option, defaulting to the second if people are very risk-averse. Views welcome.

I'd say option 2 is best - dump the sounds altogether or separate them out and provide 2 sound package choices, I suppose.

I don't think sounds are important enough to the game or the player base to go for option 3, and as for option 1, it's not so much being risk-averse as not wanting to claim things were released under a licence they weren't. After all, we had the option of just claiming the whole codebase was GPLed and likewise, the risk of objection was tiny, but I don't think it was considered an option to just appropriate anyone's work and licence it to suit ourselves. I don't see any real difference here.

comment:2 in reply to: ↑ 1 Changed 10 years ago by magnate

  • Status changed from new to confirmed

Replying to ajps:

I'd say option 2 is best - dump the sounds altogether or separate them out and provide 2 sound package choices, I suppose.

If we're going down that route, I'll just package Dubtrain's sounds. Once they're available, the demand for the other set will be tiny and the licence problem will go away.

I don't think sounds are important enough to the game or the player base to go for option 3, and as for option 1, it's not so much being risk-averse as not wanting to claim things were released under a licence they weren't. After all, we had the option of just claiming the whole codebase was GPLed and likewise, the risk of objection was tiny, but I don't think it was considered an option to just appropriate anyone's work and licence it to suit ourselves. I don't see any real difference here.

Oh I do - with each section of code we knew who had written it and under what licence it had originally been released. With the sounds, IIUC, we have no idea who created them nor under what licence the creator(s) wanted them. So they are truly abandonware, and it's therefore acceptable to place them under a licence in order to define them as properly free (until someone comes along and claims authorship, as occasionally happens with abandonware).

But if Takkaria agrees with you I'm happy to remove them from the .deb

comment:3 follow-up: Changed 10 years ago by takkaria

I'm with ajps on 2. I don't like claiming things are under licences they weren't released under. The only information I have on them is that they're "freeware"-- to claim anything else would be lying, really.

comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 Changed 10 years ago by magnate

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from confirmed to closed

Replying to takkaria:

I'm with ajps on 2. I don't like claiming things are under licences they weren't released under. The only information I have on them is that they're "freeware"-- to claim anything else would be lying, really.

There is a difference between claiming something about their origin which may be untrue, and placing them under a particular licence in the absence of any contrary indication. But we can agree to differ on the whole lying point. I'll remove them from the package and upload it.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.