[REQUEST] Package for newly open sourced linux game, Beret

[Jon Ciesla]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Mizery De Aria <mizerydearia at gmail.com>wrote:

> Did you mean that this:
>
> Regarding licensing, Kiwisauce mentioned in the IRC channel about using
> LGPL.  Prior to providing the code as open source the README.txt file had
> indicated freeware.  It is likely that Kiwisauce had not updated the
> README.txt and perhaps some other files to reflect the transition to a
> permissive open source license.  Also, I noticed that those files are not
> included in the repository.  It may be that he simply forgot.
>
> is "not really LGPL, and also can't be in Fedora." ?  I am not familiar
> with licensing practices, but I was under the impression that if an author
> releases something as proprietary freeware and then later releases the code
> for it with a more permissive license, that the code would then be
> available under that license.  Perhaps though, first come first serve type
> of license is applicable and regardless of what additional licensing
> Kiwisauce my affiliate with the code, that it doesn't matter and that the
> code will always be proprietary/freeware?
>

It can certainly be open sourced.  The problem is that it's not clear which
is really the case here.  If it's really intended to be LGPL, the other
restrictions need to be removed, or at least documented as clarified by the
author.  It could be that it was proprietary and then opened, or it could
be that they've said it's LGPL and are trying to add restrictions to that.
If the latter is the case, that's a no-no.  The former is fine.

-J

>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Jon Ciesla <limburgher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Nelson Manuel Marques <
>> nelson-m-marques at ext.ptinovacao.pt> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have just a question about the license... It's shipped as LGPL, but
>>> includes the following on the README.txt:
>>>
>>> "This game is freeware. Please do not modify or distribute without the
>>> author's permission."
>>>
>>> Sorry for the question (I'm not much familiar with licensing issues),
>>> but isn't this a bit odd ?
>>>
>>> With that stipulation, it's not really LGPL, and also can't be in Fedora.
>>
>> -J
>>
>>>
>>> NM
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 14:17 -0600, Mizery De Aria wrote:
>>> > I would like to help spread availability of a linux game that has been
>>> > recently open sourced by encouraging it to be included in package
>>> > repositories.  I don't use Red Hat and am not familiar with RPM and
>>> > would like to request if anyone else is available to prepare a package
>>> > for the game.  See
>>> > http://www.indiedb.com/games/beret/forum/thread/open-source
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> epel-devel-list mailing list
>>> epel-devel-list at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> in your fear, seek only peace
>> in your fear, seek only love
>>
>> -d. bowie
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> epel-devel-list mailing list
>> epel-devel-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>
>


-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/attachments/20111219/e0481107/attachment.html>