On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 04:19:19AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote: > Matthew Palmer wrote: > >If they're the typical .h files, /usr/include/acc would be as good a place > >as any. > > > They're not, they're .acs files. I think I'm going to rename the package
What are .acs files when they're at home? General data goes in either /usr/share or /usr/lib, depending on the architecture-specificity. > >The contents of debian/copyright would be "the material in this package has > >been illegally copied from http://zdoom.doomworld.com/. I'm expecting the > >process server any minute." > > > >Why? Because absent an explicit licence to make copies, *any* > >copyrightable > >work has the protection of copyright, which grants to the author of the > >work > >the exclusive right to make copies. Anyone else making a copy of the work > >is in breach of copyright laws. > > I've sent the author a message about this on his forums, I can't imagine > he'd have a problem with it. I asked him for the official copyright > statement, hopefully he'll get back to me soon. Once he gives permission, you're home free. If I were you, I'd ask that he put a specific copyright statement on the site somewhere. > >Get acc and zeth-doc removed ASAP. I don't know about the others. > >Certainly, anything released under the "EULA" is non-distributable. > > I don't see an obvious way to do this automatically, or I would. I'll > see if somebody in #debian-mentors can get rid of it. The other two There's a few e-mail addresses scattered around mentors.debian.net. > >Nothing in there grants anyone the right to make copies for anyone else. > >And since the licence mentions Activision a million times, I presume that > >the copyright holder of record is Activision, which means that a notice > >from > >Ravensoft is kind of pointless. If Activision licenced the software to > >Ravensoft, or sold the copyrights to them, then that should be noted > >somewhere useful. > > > The code is originally Copyright Raven, not Activision. Activision is > only mentioned in the EULA. Nowhere in the actual source is Activision > mentioned at all. But if I can't get a satisfactory response from Raven > fairly soon, I'll see what Activision has to say, not that I expect them > to be any sort of help. Weird. You'd think that with all of the money that companies have to throw around, they'd be able to employ a lawyer capable of telling them how to properly licence their code... - Matt
