[Pkg-cli-apps-commits] [SCM] openbve branch, master, updated. debian/1.4.0.0-1-45-g5c9c43b

Tue Jan 24 00:04:19 UTC 2012

The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
commit 5c9c43be95db64ef612e729140caff49cef44744
Author: Paul Sladen <debian at paul.sladen.org>
Date:   Tue Jan 24 01:04:03 2012 +0100

    Delete extranous 'licence-background.txt' previously merged into debian/copyright in commit 9ae7ec26.

diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 641f529..480929b 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
 openbve (1.4.0.5-2) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
 
+  * Delete extranous 'licence-background.txt' previously merged into
+    debian/copyright in commit 9ae7ec26.
 
  -- Paul Sladen <debian at paul.sladen.org>  Tue, 24 Jan 2012 01:00:00 +0100
 
diff --git a/debian/licence-background.txt b/debian/licence-background.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 79515b2..0000000
--- a/debian/licence-background.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,119 +0,0 @@
-Braindump of Licensing discussions for upstream Openbve.
-
-The intent and appreciation for sharing and openness has always
-present with upstream, as can be seen from the name.  Openbve was
-itself a reaction to "freeware", but non-distributable and non-fixable
-version of "BVE Train Sim".  
-
-Although the intent has been constant, the wording has evolved,
-attempting to remain short.  Upstream have welcome input where it as
-been offered on licence-terminology; as can be seen, the preference
-would be for copyright law to not exist (although international
-treaties dictate otherwise.
-
-Managed content
-
-In Openbve=1.4.0.0 in-program managed content was introduced, Openbve
-has gone out of their way to ensure that anything to be included in
-the managed content repositary is explicitly distributable.  Although
-this does affect Debian/Ubuntu directly, is shows the understanding
-of the problems that can be present with explicit statements:
-
-  http://trainsimframework.org/develop/managed/licenses.html
-
-
-History
-
-In 2008, in preparation for Debian packaging, discussion was started
-with upstream for the upstream bugtracker/forum and is copied below
-for context.  (It was at the time the closest introduction to the
-licence and intent behind the Openbve project).
-
-Forum thread from: 
-  http://openbve.freeforums.org/licence-t39.html
-
-== Licence ==
-
-Post by Sacro on Sat, 26th Apr 2008, 16:39, UTC
-
-Just out of curiosity, what licence applies to OpenBVE? It'd be nice
-to know if it's GPL or BSD or whatever as I'm quite interested in
-helping out.
-
-Sacro
-
-== Re: Licence ==
-
-Post by michelle on Sun, 27th Apr 2008, 07:43, UTC
-
-My attitude differs from so called "free software" licenses. I try to
-explain:
-
-With proprietary software, the developers usually try to restrict what
-you are allowed to do with the software to the uttermost extreme that
-is legally possible. This falls under the category of copyright.
-
-Then there is something that is sometimes called green copyright. So
-called free software falls in this category. As with proprietary
-software, a license is used to tell users what they are allowed to do
-and what not. The difference to proprietary software is that so called
-free software licenses are usually much more permissive, yet the
-author decides what you are allowed to do and what not. So called free
-software is usually attributed to derive from "freedom" instead of
-"free of charge". Still, if the author employs a license telling other
-people what they can or cannot do, this inherently cannot have
-anything to do with freedom.
-
-Then there is something called public domain, which I consider to be
-an inherently good thing as everyone has eventually the same rights as
-the author. However, releasing a work into the public domain is not
-legally meaningful in many countries. Also, releasing a work into the
-public domain (if possible) depends on the generosity of the author,
-and this decision is made by the author.
-
-My attitude is even one step further: I am opposed to copyright, thus
-I marked the game with the legally not meaningful phrase of
-"anti-copyright". It is legally meaningless, because in every country
-that has some form of copyright, it would require these laws to be
-abandoned. Still, why do I have this attitude?
-
-With a license, I would be telling other people what they can or
-cannot do. I am not such a person. I will not make any silly
-restrictions on how you can use this program, I will not tell you to
-put my name on any derived work, I will never ever give "permission"
-for you modify or redistribute the software, because I don't think
-that it is up to me telling you what you can or can't do. You should
-make this decision for yourself.
-
-I hope this briefly explained the situation.
-
-User avatar
-michelle
-
-== Re: Licence ==
-
-Post by michelle on Sat, 14th Feb 2009, 18:00, UTC
-
-I have been approached by some individuals over the time, including
-from the GNU project and the Ubuntu Foundation (as it appears at
-least), and was told that they lack a means of "legal security" for
-reuse without an explicit license. You can read my above post on
-details about my attitude regarding this matter, but as a start, I
-have decided to put the following line on the homepage and will also
-include it in any later release:
-
-  " This program, along with all documentation provided, is dedicated
-    to the public. I do not pose any restrictions on how this material
-    can be used, and explicitly encourage redistribution and
-    modification for any purpose. "
-
-michelle
-
-== Re: Licence ==
-
-Way to go Michelle!
-
-Good to hear from another lonely soul out there who gets the true
-meaning of freedom.
-
-BVEColorado

-- 
openbve

