http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/
Next step is Debian GNU/windows....

GNU Userland, GNU C Library running on windows! Take that cygwin!
As far as I know if no license is supplied you can do whatever the hell you want since there's no grounds for legal action.Okulo wrote:It seems you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say... It doesn't matter what the license is, as long as there is a license attached, be it libre or non-libre. As long as people know what they can and cannot do with the mod.skullgrid wrote:GPL is not as permissive as most people say. How about WTFPL or CC or BSD for default?Okulo wrote: The issue is not picking a license that is not the default or even one that is libre - the issue is people not picking a license at all. You might not want to force freedom, but you do want to force clarity. There is literally nobody who suffers from such clarity.
You can't force that on repositories that are not controlled by you. You can however, force it when it is mandatory metadata. That is why having a license on a website or in a textfile alone is not enough to ensure every mod has it attached. People can repackage it and modders can just neglect to add one. It needs to be stapled to the mod.
That is not true, and it is very important. If no license is supplied, it is assumed "all rights reserved" and no license is given to distribute at all, nor use or modify. That's one of the problems in the mod community, they don't know that not licensing means no one is legally allowed to use it or give it to a friend. Sometimes they say "for personal use only" which means you're allowed to use it, but you can't put it on a flash drive and give it to a friend.skullgrid wrote: As far as I know if no license is supplied you can do whatever the hell you want since there's no grounds for legal action.
Metadata licenses are a good idea however, if only for visibility and not cluttering the folder with text files.
Speaking as someone who's studied copyright, I can confirm that this is absolutely untrue. In most jurisdictions, not specifying copyright is keeping all rights reserved. There's an implicit right to distribution wherever the author has submitted it, but there are grounds for legal action should someone else distribute it, make a derivative work using it, or publicly perform it. This actually means that those quasi-sanctioned YouTubers who make play videos of games could be sued by a mod-maker, although this is highly unlikely (and runs contrary to most modders' goals) there is a precedent for such things occurring. Remember that copyright law almost always rules in favor of the content creator; my professor always said "If a verbatim copy is made, and it's not fair use, it's infringement", and while video footage is not "a verbatim copy", it's close enough to such to be risky, and there's no evidence that anything like this would be fair use. Especially since courts usually get tech wrong.skullgrid wrote:As far as I know if no license is supplied you can do whatever the hell you want since there's no grounds for legal action.
exactly! this is why choosing a license is very important to modders and actually helps their mods, they sometimes see it as some odorous action where they lose creative control. In reality, it is the thing that makes the mod playable and distributable in the first place. Just pick one that does what you want.SquireNed wrote:Speaking as someone who's studied copyright, I can confirm that this is absolutely untrue. In most jurisdictions, not specifying copyright is keeping all rights reserved. There's an implicit right to distribution wherever the author has submitted it, but there are grounds for legal action should someone else distribute it, make a derivative work using it, or publicly perform it. This actually means that those quasi-sanctioned YouTubers who make play videos of games could be sued by a mod-maker, although this is highly unlikely (and runs contrary to most modders' goals) there is a precedent for such things occurring. Remember that copyright law almost always rules in favor of the content creator; my professor always said "If a verbatim copy is made, and it's not fair use, it's infringement", and while video footage is not "a verbatim copy", it's close enough to such to be risky, and there's no evidence that anything like this would be fair use. Especially since courts usually get tech wrong.skullgrid wrote:As far as I know if no license is supplied you can do whatever the hell you want since there's no grounds for legal action.
Debian project seems to disagree with you:K0kt409P wrote:hosting game mods seems like it would be outside the scope of the Debian project, so I rather doubt they would agree to it even if the mods used permissive/copy-left licenses.
Code: Select all
[email protected]:~$ apt-cache search minetest-mod
minetest-mod-moreblocks - Minetest mod - More Blocks
minetest-mod-moreores - Minetest mod - More Ores
minetest-mod-pipeworks - Minetest mod - Pipeworks
minetest-mod-worldedit - Minetest mod - ingame world editor