New candidates for inclusion in Extras : udftools and starfighter-music

[Nils Philippsen]

On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 13:54 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 13:19:17 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
> 
> > Here are packages I'd like to add to Extras :
> 
> > - starfighter-music : My current starfighter package doesn't bundle the
> > musics, as they are in a separate zip file and aren't necessarily updated
> > at the same time as the main game (i.e. game is at 1.1 and music 1.0
> > currenty). One question about this is whether to make the main package
> > require the music one for everyone to get the complete gaming experience
> > (I'd favour this) or to let people optionally install the musics
> > themselves.
> > 
> > If I understood Warren's last process proposal :
> > - I need someone (besides myself) to sponsor my package (?).
> > - There needs to be no legal/licensing problems (*).
> > - Nobody must oppose a veto.
> > 
> > They should all comply with "best practices", and I'll announce to the
> > commits list if/once approved.
> > 
> > (*) : The starfighter-music zip doesn't contain any license information.
> > But I assume that it is covered by the same one as the main program (GNU
> > GPL) since it seems to be split apart only for practical reasons. Should I
> > add a copy of the GNU GPL to the package nevertheless? Is having it depend
> > on the main package which contains the license details enough?
> 
> One thing for sure, the music zip package is not GPL'ed, because the
> composers did not release their music as GPL. Included in the zip are 13
> MOD files (Protracker or equivalent) and 1 S3M file (Scream Tracker). The
> credits within the files indicate that they were not made specifically for
> Starfighter, but were taken from the public domain and made in 1993 to
> 1996. Usually, MOD files which were not published by their composers
> directly, were ripped from PC/Amiga demos or music demo shows and then
> released in the public domain without prior written consent by their
> authors. If not ripped from commercial games, the composer usually have
> nothing against their music being used in other "free" (here as in free
> beer) software.
> 
> This package is at most "License: Public Domain", but not GPL.

This would indeed be the case if and only if the original authors
explicitly state that their work is in the Public Domain which would
probably be taken as a similar statement without waiver of copyright in
countries like Germany (but IANAL). Do we really have statements to that
effect from the original authors?

The music having been downloaded from "Public Domain" (quotes
intentional) BBSs, CDs, ... does not automatically mean that the work is
in fact Public Domain, it could be anything between that and freeware
without permission to use commercially, etc.

Nils
-- 
     Nils Philippsen    /    Red Hat    /    nphilipp at redhat.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."     -- B. Franklin, 1759
 PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011