On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 12:19:50 +0200 Francesco Poli <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:54:27 -0500 Zorian M wrote: > > > I've sent an email to the author of "Devilish design" to request an > > additional CC-BY license > [...] > > Hello, > I stumbled upon this bug report and I feel like commenting on it. > > I disagree that re-licensing the rendered ogg files would be enough to > solve this issue. > > The Debian Social Contract states, in part: > > | 1. Debian will remain 100% free > | > | We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is > | "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software > | Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its > | components will be free according to these guidelines. > [...] > > DFSG#2 requires the availability of source code. > > Hence, distributing the source-less files under a license that does not > require the availability of source would not solve the issue.
This is certainly not true for an ogg file which might very well be the only available source. > > The Debian Project must distribute the source (for works included in > packages in Debian main) anyway, regardless of how permissive is the > license. This is quoted out of context. If game assets like music or images are shipped under a permissive license, then there is no requirement to ship some hypothetical "source" as well. There are a lot of artists who reuse png, bmp, ogg or other media as their primary source material. See https://wiki.debian.org/Games/Source for a collection of quotes regarding this topic, especially the thread on debian-devel and posts like https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/03/msg00293.html [...] >> > >> > Also, Medicine.ogg is, according to OpenGameArt.org, created by >> > Alexander Zhelanov, and is licensed only under CC-BY 3.0. > > If this is again a rendered ogg file generated from a distinct source > form, then the source must be included in the Debian source package. > > > What I expressed is my own opinion on the topic, but it is shared by a > good number of other people. > I hope I explained things clearly enough. > > Please address this issue in a proper way. > Thanks for your time. Indeed you have expressed your own opinion and some others might agree but this is _not_ the official stance of the Debian project. Please carefully read the aforementioned thread on debian-devel "https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004 That GR proposal does not require source for non-programmatic works. It only "strongly recommends" it, and says explicitly that such source doesn't have to be in the archive. Quote from Russ Albery on debian-devel https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/03/msg00299.html"; Regards, Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
