Fedora Lost Labyrinth packages completed

Hans de Goede j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Mon May 26 09:08:53 UTC 2008


Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2008/5/25 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl>:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'm done packaging Lost Labyrinth for Fedora, I ended up packaging elice,
>> the engine, the graphics and the sounds all separately. I've done this
>> because the graphics and esp. the sounds aren't updated as often as the
>> engie, so this way I can keep the bandwidth needed to update to the latest
>> versions small
>>
>> For those interested here are the review requests for the resulting
>> packages:
>>
>> * elice - Elice is a PureBasic to c++ translator / compiler
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448310
>>
>> * lostlabyrinth - Lost Labyrinth is a coffeebreak dungeon crawling game
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448311
>>
>> * lostlabyrinth-sounds - Lost Labyrinth sounds
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448312
>>
>> * lostlabyrinth-graphics - Lost Labyrinth graphics
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448313
> 
> Hi Hans!! :)
> 
> Thanks for this, did you have to add any patches to the original source?
> 

Nope.

> The licensing stuff is quite wierd, nothing is said about the license
> in any of the source files nor the resources and sound files, and all
> I could find is "Open Source (GPL)" in [1] and "GNU General Public
> License (GPL)" in [2], which might not be explicit enough for
> convincing the ftpmasters (always the bad guys, but in their defense I
> must say that if I was in charge of that, I would probably do the
> same). I still have doubts about the resources and sounds, as it is
> often not taken for granted thay they are released under the GPL even
> when the code is.
> 

I agree and I've already mailed upstream to send me a clearer licensing 
statement by mail, when I have that I'll add the full mail as a 
license_clarification.txt file to the docs of the packages..

> Is there any way that upstream could be more explicit about the
> license under which is released the code, the sounds and the
> resources? The ideal way would be to have a readme file in all of the
> tarballs stating that clearly and also a copy of the license. Do you
> think there should be a way to get that? Otherwise, maybe just a mail
> from them, preferrably GPG-Signed, saying that might be enough.
> 

As said above I've already asked for a mail, dunno if Markus can sign it, but 
an unsigned one should be fine too. We don't ask for signed readme's or signed 
.c / . c++ files either and use copyright info from there normally.

Regards,

Hans


p.s.

There also is the following text in readme.txt:

"Licence: General Public Licence (GPL V2)"

Unfortunately the documentation files are only part of the binary releases, 
I've made a seperate tarbal with the .txt files myself for the Fedora packages.




More information about the Fedora-games-list mailing list