Spec Name or Url: http://www.chrisgrau.com/packages/inform/inform.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.chrisgrau.com/packages/inform/inform-6.30.2-1.src.rpm Description: Inform is an Interactive Fiction (text adventure) game compiler -- it takes source code you write and turns it into a game data file which is then played using a Z-machine interpreter, such as frotz. Also of note, rpmlint reports many of the following errors: info-files-without-install-info-postin info-files-without-install-info-postun I suspect this is because the installation path of inform's data files is /usr/share/inform, which is very similar to /usr/share/info. The inform distribution contains no info files.
The noise from rpmlint looks bogus indeed, and will be fixed in the next rpmlint package revision.
The license needs a closer look, in particular: I am happy for it to be freely distributed to anybody who wants a copy, provided that: (a) distributed copies are not substantially different from those archived by the author, (b) this and other copyright messages are always retained in full, and (c) no profit is involved. (Exceptions to these rules must be negotiated directly with the author.) Of need for clarification is the no profit and the "distributed copies are not substantially different".
IANAL but we need to ask the author to change the license, the "no profit" is unacceptable, believe me I've been on the other end trying to argue about this and I've lost. An alternative would be creating a non-commercial-use-only repo but there doesn't seem to be any support in the community for this.
Ping? I know licensing is no fun, but if you/we want this package in FE we need to sort this out. If you want me to I can contact the author and politely explain our problem to him and ask for a license change. I've done so successfully in the past, do a "yum install crystall-stacker" or "yum install worminator" and then look in /usr/share/doc/xxx to see the license change discussion, I've included the discussion in the packages because upstream hasn't released a new version with the new license included yet.
Has anyone contacted roger about the license? That would seem to be the proper contact address these days.
Jason, I would be more then happy to contact that address, I'm waiting for a comment from Chris on this, does he want me to contact that address or will he do so himself? Chris?
Sorry about the silence. I'll contact the author today. Thanks for the ping guys.
I contacted Graham Nelson regarding this issue. He has his reasons for not wanting to use an OSI-approved license. In his words, > I am nervous of the GPL, and its cognates. Not because I dislike > the principle of thing, or do not share the generally egalitarian > outlook - but because I want to keep the definition of the language > stable. I therefore don't want to give people the right to create > derivative works. All the other rights are fine - open source, > compile it yourself, distribute it yourself, no fees or patents, > use it even commercially without permission, sure. I just don't > want Inform to be like awk, with no copy of awk compatible > with any other on points of detail. I can understand where he's coming from on this and I'm not convinced I want to change his mind. I'm going to go ahead and let the issue drop. I appreciate the attention from both Jason and Hans.
Hmm, Couldn't he make up a License (using an OSI one as starting point) which is fully OSI except that it doesn't allow changing the Inform language? Which then brings us to the next question, would such a License be open enough for Fedora? Otherwise you can always package it for the repo that must not be named.