Re: [tsc-devel] Licensing handling

Quintus | Mon, 09 Feb 2015 19:28:24 UTC

Chris Jacobsen <…9@y…> writes:

> If I understood this correctly, we can release version 2.0 as-is if we
> adjust the licensing to state this, and distributors aren't likely to
> raise any concerns, correct?

A distributor will not know what license to apply to the assets
package(s). He might not even agree to packaging any assets with unclear
licensing. As we have found out already, Bugsbane’s graphics are
probably not distributable if you want a written confirmation on
licensing.

We could add a document to the repository to outline the problem so a
distributor may choose to package that document as the assets
license. Separating code and assets license explanations into two
separate files is probably good anyway.

The final decision is on the distributor then. We can ask Akien; he is
packaging for Mageia Linux. Maybe he can provide us with some insights.

> We will need to decide what to ask Johan and Bugsbane (I already wrote
> a possible draft in a previous email) and decide who will send it and
> when.

I’ll have to read your draft up again. I saw it on the ML, but I’ve not
read through it until now.

> We also should ask for licensing confirmations for future commits from
> people such as DarkAceZ who commit artwork via github.

At least, DarkAceZ and syndey are easy to contact. AFAIK, DarkAceZ has
confirmed licensing for each of his assets as CC-BY-SA anyway and syndey
likewise.

Valete,
Quintus

-- 
Blog: http://www.quintilianus.eu

I will reject HTML emails.     | Ich akzeptiere keine HTML-Nachrichten.
                               |
Use GnuPG for mail encryption: | GnuPG für Mail-Verschlüsselung:
http://www.gnupg.org           | http://gnupg.org/index.de.html