--------------------------- DISCLAIMER: This email does not contain legal advice. This email also does not establish a solicitor-client relationship. You should neither take nor fail to take any action based on any information in this email. If you have a legal issue, then retain legal counsel. -------------------------- Hi Kalev,[TL;DR: I'm leaning towards "probably not, unless the Chasseur de bots Association, which appears to hold the copyright on the relevant proprietary game media assets, provides clear and written clarification on the text in Section 4, perhaps through redrafting the license itself."]
I looked over your attached document. It appears that Warsow has two licenses:
1. Source code - GPL (version not specified) 2. All other media assets - proprietary Warsow Content LicenseTo see if this combination could be acceptable in Fedora, I looked at the Guidelines for Shareware software (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Shareware), which specifically mentions open source game engines combined with "freely distributable shareware gamedata files. In this case, the gamedata files can be packaged and included in Fedora, as long as the files meet the requirements for binary firmware."
Following the link to the policies on binary firmware (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Binary_Firmware), we learn that, among other things if "The files are standalone, not embedded in executable or library code (within the Fedora OS context)," then the package cannot be included.
Scrolling to near the bottom of your attachment, we find the "Warsow Content License". Section 3 states "You may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, sell, participate in the transfer or sale or reproduce, create Derivative Works from, distribute, perform, display or in any way exploit any of the Material released under this License unless expressly permitted by the Warsow Team."
I then looked for what type of activity may be "expressly permitted by the Warsow Team" under this license. The relevant text, Section 4, reads "You may freely distribute the Warsow archive/installer unmodified on any media. You may re-compress using different archival formats suitable for your OS (i.e. zip/tgz/rpm/deb/dmg), any changes beyond that require explicit permission of the Chasseur de bots association."
The "Warsow archive/installer" is not defined in the license text, which is unfortunate and creates ambiguity as to what is precisely being licensed. It is possible that, given the reference to different archival formats in Section 4, "archive/installer" refers to a compressed file containing a combination of open source code and proprietary game media assets.
If that's the case, then it appears that Section 4 of the Warsow Content License conflicts with the Fedora Licensing Guidelines on Binary Firmware, as mentioned above ("The files are standalone, not embedded in executable or library code (within the Fedora OS context). "). That would block Warsow from being included for packaging for Fedora.
If the Chasseur de bots Association were to be contacted, this problem could be resolved. If an authorized agent for the association could provide clear and written clarification regarding Section 4, ideally through redrafting the license itself, then this matter could be revisited in light of the new and/or clarified licensing regime.
Thanks, Adam Saunders On 05/17/2014 03:51 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: > Hi, > > Could someone please review the attached Warsow Content License to see > if content licensed under those terms is appropriate for inclusion in > Fedora? I assume it's not, but I'd be grateful if someone could give an > authoritative answer. > > Thanks in advance, > Kalev > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal mailing list > legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal > On 05/17/2014 03:51 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
Hi, Could someone please review the attached Warsow Content License to see if content licensed under those terms is appropriate for inclusion in Fedora? I assume it's not, but I'd be grateful if someone could give an authoritative answer. Thanks in advance, Kalev _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
