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
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 ?
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
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Nelson Manuel Marques < nelson-m-marques@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@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
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?
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Nelson Manuel Marques < nelson-m-marques@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@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@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Mizery De Aria mizerydearia@gmail.comwrote:
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@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Nelson Manuel Marques < nelson-m-marques@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@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@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
The source tree on gitorious doesn't have the file with the restrictions, which at some point complies with the information given by Misery.
I don't mind maintaining this game for Fedora, but I'm just wondering why it was asked on EPEL (Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux) and not for Fedora. I'm not sure if people use Enterprise Linux to play games :)
I can also additionally maintain it for openSUSE games repository as I've got full permissions there.
NM
[1] - https://gitorious.org/beret/beret/trees/master
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 07:31 -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Mizery De Aria mizerydearia@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@gmail.com> wrote: On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Nelson Manuel Marques <nelson-m-marques@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@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@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@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
Another question:
I do see a "tahoma.ttf" font on the source directory... But no reference to any potential license for that font.
Tahoma[1] as I know it shouldn't really be bundle with this package as it's proprietary stuff (I think ?)
Could you please clarify us regarding this issue ?
NM
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahoma_(typeface)
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
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Nelson Manuel Marques < nelson-m-marques@ext.ptinovacao.pt> wrote:
Another question:
I do see a "tahoma.ttf" font on the source directory... But no reference to any potential license for that font.
Tahoma[1] as I know it shouldn't really be bundle with this package as it's proprietary stuff (I think ?)
Could you please clarify us regarding this issue ?
Strip it out of the tarball:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohib...
And if there's a compatible font in Fedora, symlink to it.
-J
NM
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahoma_(typeface)
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@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 09:23 -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Nelson Manuel Marques nelson-m-marques@ext.ptinovacao.pt wrote:
Another question: I do see a "tahoma.ttf" font on the source directory... But no reference to any potential license for that font. Tahoma[1] as I know it shouldn't really be bundle with this package as it's proprietary stuff (I think ?) Could you please clarify us regarding this issue ?Strip it out of the tarball: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohib...
And if there's a compatible font in Fedora, symlink to it.
True. We can remove that font and symlink it to tahoma provided by the mscore-fonts.
NM
-J
NM [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahoma_(typeface) 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@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
...
And if there's a compatible font in Fedora, symlink to it.
True. We can remove that font and symlink it to tahoma provided by the mscore-fonts.
symlink? - why?
wouldn't it be better to teach the game to look into proper directories (if it doesn't use some standard library providing access to fonts)?
K.
Hi,
Indeed it would be better. Are you offering yourself to provide such patch ? :)
NM
On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 12:43 +0100, Karel Volný wrote:
...
And if there's a compatible font in Fedora, symlink to it.
True. We can remove that font and symlink it to tahoma provided by the mscore-fonts.
symlink? - why?
wouldn't it be better to teach the game to look into proper directories (if it doesn't use some standard library providing access to fonts)?
K.
Hi,
Indeed it would be better. Are you offering yourself to provide such patch ? :)
see below for some inspiration ...
meanwhile, the git sources changed not to use Tahoma, but I've tried anyways - the package would need to depend on wine-tahoma- fonts where I've found tahoma.ttf
I've compiled with
CFLAGS='-I/usr/include/SDL -DFONT_PATH="/usr/share/fonts/wine- tahoma-fonts/"' make
you'd use %{_includedir} instead of "/usr/include" and %{_datadir} instead of "/usr/share" in .spec
(note that keeping double quotation marks around the path string is important)
also RESOURCE_PATH needs to be handled in a similar way ...
--- Makefile~ 2011-12-20 13:07:29.000000000 +0100 +++ Makefile 2011-12-20 14:17:28.095829521 +0100 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ CC= gcc -CFLAGS= -Wall -g -LFLAGS= -lSDLmain -lSDL -lSDL_image -lSDL_ttf -lSDL_mixer +CFLAGS+=-Wall -g +LFLAGS=-lSDL -lSDL_image -lSDL_ttf -lSDL_mixer -lm
default: beret
--- game.c~ 2011-12-20 13:07:29.000000000 +0100 +++ game.c 2011-12-20 14:48:21.639827082 +0100 @@ -91,10 +91,17 @@ #ifdef __APPLE__ #define SUPPORT_PATH "Library/Application Support/Beret/" #define RESOURCE_PATH "Beret.app/Contents/Resources/" -#else +#define FONT_PATH RESOURCE_PATH +#endif + +#ifndef RESOURCE_PATH #define RESOURCE_PATH "" #endif
+#ifndef FONT_PATH +#define FONT_PATH RESOURCE_PATH +#endif + #define QUITMOD_WIN KMOD_ALT #define QUITKEY_WIN SDLK_F4 #define QUITMOD_LIN KMOD_CTRL @@ -894,9 +901,12 @@ }
// Load fonts - font = TTF_OpenFont(RESOURCE_PATH "AveriaSans-Regular.ttf", 24); - smfont = TTF_OpenFont(RESOURCE_PATH "AveriaSans-Regular.ttf", 9); - medfont = TTF_OpenFont(RESOURCE_PATH "AveriaSans-Regular.ttf", 16); + font = TTF_OpenFont(FONT_PATH "tahoma.ttf", 24); + smfont = TTF_OpenFont(FONT_PATH "tahoma.ttf", 9); + medfont = TTF_OpenFont(FONT_PATH "tahoma.ttf", 16); + if ((font == NULL) || (smfont == NULL) || (medfont = NULL)) { + fprintf(stderr,"We're going to segfault due to null pointer, as there's no error handling for opening the fonts :-)\n"); + }
// Load music for (i=0; i<MUSIC_MAX; i++) {
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jon Ciesla -
Karel Volný -
Mizery De Aria -
Nelson Manuel Marques