On 05.10.2016 06:51, Vincent Cheng wrote: > (Looping in ftpmasters to see if they have any comments re: #832062) > > Hi Deve, > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Deve <dev...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> After direct contact with the author, I corrected the information about >> author and license in this commit: >> >> https://sourceforge.net/p/supertuxkart/code/16762/ >> >> Also note that source files (the .mod file and lossless .wav file) are >> available in our media repo: >> https://sourceforge.net/p/supertuxkart/code/HEAD/tree/media/trunk/music/mods/
We have always accepted that "source" files for media assets may be outside of Debian. There is no must requirement under the DFSG to include them in the source tarball, although we recommend it. Often it is just impractical to ship hundreds of megabyte of media content and an ogg, bmp or png, (insert $media file here) may also be simply the one and only source material for an artist. > Great, thanks for the link! > >> More information: >> http://forum.freegamedev.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6562 >> https://github.com/supertuxkart/stk-code/issues/2577 >> >> I hope that this should be enough to fix this issue. > > Would it be at all possible for "Vim" to publicly state their approval > of licensing "Boom_boom_boom.ogg" under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license (by > replying directly to this bug report / upstream github issue / forum > thread at [1])? Unfortunately their last public statement in [1] > imposes a not-for-profit condition on using their work, which violates > DFSG#6. > > Does ftpmaster or anyone else in the Debian Games team have any > thoughts about this issue? I think a public statement from the > original composer of the track in question would be sufficient (unless > "Vim" has a gpg key tied to their identity, which doesn't seem to be > the case), unless anyone has any objections? I don't think we can > reasonably expect more proof from upstream that this file is > DFSG-compatible. Agreed. If we start to distrust upstream developers with this, then we should be consequent enough and stop packaging their software at all and this doesn't sound like a good approach to me for a distribution like Debian. I think a public statement from the copyright holder is sufficient. Regards, Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
