debs in debian: the problem

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 22 Sep 2007, 19:25

Ok, since I noticed questions about this in various threads on the forum today, let me point out some things:

I have been working a while (months) ago with someone from the debian games team (KiBi) to get Spring in Debian main repository. Actually the debian/ folder for debian packages lives somewhere in the debian games SVN already.

The major time taking part is fixing all the copyright issues, there are files under various licenses (though compatible with GPL) and files under unknown licenses in the repository. AFAIK all these discrepancies have to be listed in some file in the debian directory, and this takes a lot of time. If this is not done properly the repo admins would refuse to put it in. I think KiBi lost interest in it because it is so much work but I don't know exactly, I don't have enough time anymore to figure out the state of this etc.

Relative · Post by **Relative** » 22 Sep 2007, 19:47

I thought YokoZar had taken over the .debs situation and that an individual repository was going to be the answer.

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 22 Sep 2007, 19:49

Yes, but people still talk about that putting debs in debian is a good idea and why it has not been done yet.

So I wanted to point out that it has been _tried_ at least.

Relative · Post by **Relative** » 22 Sep 2007, 19:49

Tobi wrote:Yes, but people still talk about that putting debs in debian is a good idea and why it has not been done yet.

So I wanted to point out that it has been _tried_ at least.

Ah ok, that's completely understandable.

clericvash · Post by **clericvash** » 22 Sep 2007, 19:51

What exactly are under difference licenses?

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 22 Sep 2007, 19:57

- NVidia dds SDK
- SM3 map renderer
- Some bitmaps (some public domain, some need be remade because they were just downloaded from the www)
- mmgr
- bget
- lua (needs to be included because it's modified slightly)

maybe I forgot some.

AF · Post by AF » 22 Sep 2007, 20:21

I thought bget was just used in mapconv?

And I thought the sm3 renderer was gpl as its directly used in spring and only in spring written by a spring developer.

Lua falls under the MIT licence.

This was taken form the x-moto 0.17 alpha changelog:

Code: Select all

 * Paul Nettle's MMGR no longer included in the non-windows release. 
   Apparantly its (custom) license conflicted with the Debian Free 
   Software Guideline #6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of 
   Endeavor) by stating:
   
    - "You may not use this software to directly or indirectly cause
       harm to others."
      
   So this is good news if you want to burn X-Moto unto a CD and kill
   someone with it! :)

Theres this form here: http://www-valoria.univ-ubs.fr/Michel.D ... ource.html

Code: Select all

00001 // -----------------------------------
00002 // Copyright 2000, Paul Nettle. All rights reserved.
00003 //
00004 // You are free to use this source code in any commercial or non-commercial product.

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 22 Sep 2007, 21:25

bget is used in Spring too if compiling with SYNCIFY defined.

SM3 is not GPL, look in the sources (terrain subdirectory, the files in the SM3 directory itself are GPL).

Good thing to know about mmgr in xmoto though, thanks for that. (Not that I have time to do anything with it but maybe some DD reads it.)

imbaczek · Post by **imbaczek** » 22 Sep 2007, 23:21

I'm not sure what to think about it. IANAL, but to me the GPL is pretty clear and the sm3 renderer is GPL by virtue of everything else in spring being GPL... unless it's dead code, but I doubt it.

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 22 Sep 2007, 23:41

For what I know these files are basically is dual licensed this way, but IANAL. Either way the debian ppl want to know...

imbaczek · Post by **imbaczek** » 23 Sep 2007, 00:09

if they're dual licensed, debian guys shouldn't complain about this particular instance. OTOH, given the recent atheros shitstorm, nobody knows.

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 23 Sep 2007, 00:24

They don't complain but it must be listed. They just want ALL copyright information about ALL files available in a single file.

Post by **Tim Blokdijk** » 23 Sep 2007, 00:40

And I actually fully support Debian in that policy..

*ducks*

clericvash · Post by **clericvash** » 23 Sep 2007, 12:51

Maybe you guys should keep better track of what you use, or re-write to your own code.

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 23 Sep 2007, 13:10

That kind of tips is only useful if you say it before a project starts... not when bunches of developers have joined and left already.

(not that I don't agree, but it is not a full solution, only a solution for stuff that is added recently / will be added in the future)

The code is fine btw, just a bunch of different licenses all compatible with GPL for what I know (but again, IANAL).

clericvash · Post by **clericvash** » 23 Sep 2007, 13:13

Well i would strongly suggest that you set some new ground rules on what comes into the engine and that all code is checked.

I also strngly suggest that you do take the time to actually check and note down what currently licenses things are using:

For one thing you are giving out the source for free and allowing others to change and distribute, what if someone comes along and doesn't want there code included, or complains of no license in there.

And also you developers are doing all this work for free, wouldn't it be nice to actually get some more regular players for your hard work to pay off? So get working and submit fully to debian

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 23 Sep 2007, 14:09

clericvash wrote:take the time

thats the problem

Post by **Tim Blokdijk** » 23 Sep 2007, 14:35

clericvash wrote:Well i would strongly suggest that clericvash set some new ground rules on what comes into the engine and that all code is checked.

I also strngly suggest that clericvash do take the time to actually check and note down what currently licenses things are using:

For one thing we (including clericvash) are giving out the source for free and allowing others to change and distribute, what if someone comes along and doesn't want there code included, or complains of no license in there.

And also all contributors are doing all this work for free, wouldn't it be nice to actually get some more regular players for the hard work to pay off? So clericvash get working and submit fully to debian

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 23 Sep 2007, 14:55

well i was in a good mood so compiled a list of the things i figured out beginning of this year wrt the installer/builddata/bitmaps contents and put it in svn:

https://spring.clan-sy.com/svn/spring/t ... README.txt

clericvash · Post by **clericvash** » 23 Sep 2007, 15:43

Tim your not funny

, i know nothing of C and all that i only know php so i am completely useless in helping.

And tobi, good job, but seriously if you want your hard work on the engine to pay off, we need to get some distros to take it in. Or have our own official repository. (and no tim i can't do that either

).

Spring RTS Engine

debs in debian: the problem

debs in debian: the problem