Dear list, here's another bundled component of AGS[1], libcda, which contains code from BCD, which is licensed under what it calls "swap-ware" license[3]: === Licensing: BCD, like Allegro (a graphics & sound library), is swap-ware: "You may use, modify, redistribute, and generally hack it about in any way you like, but if you do you must send me something in exchange. This could be a complimentary copy of a game, an addition or improvement to BCD, a bug report, some money (this is particularly encouraged if you use BCD in a commercial product), or just a copy of your AUTOEXEC.BAT if you don't have anything better. If you redistribute BCD or make a game using it, it would be nice if you mentioned me somewhere in the credits."
I hope Shawn Hargreaves doesn't mind me pinching his licensing statement, but I like the idea of swapware and hope it spreads.
So, BCD is free for use, but if you do something with it, cool or dumb, I would like credit and I would definitely want to hear about what you're doing with it. I also encourage you to send me a copy of what you're up to. You should always be able to find my web pages via http://brennan.home.ml.org/ and I've got all kinds of game programming info under http://brennan.home.ml.org/djgpp/ Check it out! ===
I noticed that Allegro license[3] is actually giftware, not swap-ware.
Fortunately, the two files (djgpp.c and bcd.doc) are not compiled or used in any way on Linux, so at worst, I could just remove them from distributed tarball. However, it'd be more convenient to ship upstream source tarball directly. Is this OK to include in Fedora?
Regards, Dominik
[1] http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/site/ags/ https://github.com/adventuregamestudio/ags/ [2] https://github.com/adventuregamestudio/ags/blob/master/Engine/libsrc/libcda-... [3] https://github.com/liballeg/allegro5/blob/4.4.3/docs/src/readme._tx#L198
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 12:05:05AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
here's another bundled component of AGS[1], libcda, which contains code from BCD, which is licensed under what it calls "swap-ware"
Legal issues asside, I think this becomes untenable. What if a Fedora install image had, say, twelve such pieces of software. That's quite a list of autoexec.bats to email to various places.
On Thursday, 03 October 2019 at 14:46, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 12:05:05AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
here's another bundled component of AGS[1], libcda, which contains code from BCD, which is licensed under what it calls "swap-ware"
Legal issues asside, I think this becomes untenable. What if a Fedora install image had, say, twelve such pieces of software. That's quite a list of autoexec.bats to email to various places.
I agree, but the legal issue is what allows me to or prevents me from packaging this code in Fedora. Any ideas if this is free or non-free?
The package was reviewed[1], but I don't feel comfortable uploading the tarball into the look-aside cache without an OK from legal.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757990
Regards, Dominik
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net wrote:
On Thursday, 03 October 2019 at 14:46, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 12:05:05AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
here's another bundled component of AGS[1], libcda, which contains code from BCD, which is licensed under what it calls "swap-ware"
Legal issues asside, I think this becomes untenable. What if a Fedora install image had, say, twelve such pieces of software. That's quite a list of autoexec.bats to email to various places.
I agree, but the legal issue is what allows me to or prevents me from packaging this code in Fedora. Any ideas if this is free or non-free?
The package was reviewed[1], but I don't feel comfortable uploading the tarball into the look-aside cache without an OK from legal.
Hi, is the license you're talking about this one? https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
Clearly not a free software license IMO.
Richard
On Thursday, 10 October 2019 at 00:10, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net wrote:
On Thursday, 03 October 2019 at 14:46, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 12:05:05AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
here's another bundled component of AGS[1], libcda, which contains code from BCD, which is licensed under what it calls "swap-ware"
Legal issues asside, I think this becomes untenable. What if a Fedora install image had, say, twelve such pieces of software. That's quite a list of autoexec.bats to email to various places.
I agree, but the legal issue is what allows me to or prevents me from packaging this code in Fedora. Any ideas if this is free or non-free?
The package was reviewed[1], but I don't feel comfortable uploading the tarball into the look-aside cache without an OK from legal.
Hi, is the license you're talking about this one? https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
Yes.
Clearly not a free software license IMO.
I suspected as much. Removing the files from upstream tarball before uploading to Fedora look-aside cache is the only option for now, correct?
Regards, Dominik
Yes, because of the way this license is drafted, you need to make a clean tarball which has the files under that license removed, and use that in the package.
Tom
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 6:13 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < dominik@greysector.net> wrote:
On Thursday, 10 October 2019 at 00:10, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net wrote:
On Thursday, 03 October 2019 at 14:46, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 12:05:05AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann'
Mierzejewski wrote:
here's another bundled component of AGS[1], libcda, which contains code from BCD, which is licensed under what it calls "swap-ware"
Legal issues asside, I think this becomes untenable. What if a Fedora install image had, say, twelve such pieces of software. That's quite
a list
of autoexec.bats to email to various places.
I agree, but the legal issue is what allows me to or prevents me from packaging this code in Fedora. Any ideas if this is free or non-free?
The package was reviewed[1], but I don't feel comfortable uploading the tarball into the look-aside cache without an OK from legal.
Hi, is the license you're talking about this one?
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
Yes.
Clearly not a free software license IMO.
I suspected as much. Removing the files from upstream tarball before uploading to Fedora look-aside cache is the only option for now, correct?
Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
It was ok for me to remove files with incompatible licenses in the %prep stage without modifying the original tarball. But those were free but incompatible licenses. It might be different for files with a non-free license.
-
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Matthew Miller -
Richard Fontana -
Stuart D Gathman -
Tom Callaway