On 2018/06/12 23:10, mitchell wodach wrote: > On 6/12/18, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > > On 2018/06/12 21:26, mitchell wodach wrote: > >> On 6/9/18, Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 06:15:01PM -0500, mitchell wodach wrote: > >> >> Hi > >> >> > >> >> I'm working on porting Freedink. I have the data separate form the > >> >> game > >> >> code. > >> >> The data has multiple licenses. so for PERMIT_PACKAGE in Makefile I > >> >> should > >> >> pick the most restrictive license? > >> > > >> > What you're saying is highly ambiguous: do the individual data files > >> > have > >> > separate licences ? In that case, the most restrictive is appropriate. > >> > > >> > Or do you see several licences that apply to all files ? In that case, > >> > this means the data can be redistributed under any of the licences. In > >> > that > >> > case, the least restrictive is appropriate. > >> > > >> > >> I do apologize for the ambiguity of my question. not the greatest > >> question asker. > >> I took a look in the upstream source tarball for the data. the files > >> do have their own separate licences. most of the data is licensed > >> under zlib. The files that are not under the zlib license are > >> specified in a separate readme file and have a folder with all the > >> license texts. so the first case is the one I need to pick. I guess I > >> have some reading todo lol! > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Mitch > >> > > > > Got a link to the actual distfiles you're looking at? > > > > > yes I do have a link > > https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/freedink/freedink-data-1.08.20170409.tar.gz > > The files I looked at are README.txt and README-REPLACEMENTS.txt and > the directory with license texts in it is called licenses/
I would write "various free-distribution licenses; see README.txt and README-REPLACEMENTS.txt in the distribution". (and the main game code is "GPLv3 or newer" so write that as "GPLv3+").
