Legal opinion : partly non free graphics

[Xavier Bachelot]

Andrea Musuruane wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:48 PM, John Arntz <jsarntz at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'm not a Lawyer or anything, but I would pose this question: Are the non-free graphics allowed to be redistributed? If the license states that they are, but can't be altered, or used for commercial purposes then I would be inclined to say they are permissible as a non-free package, but if it says they cannot be redistributed at all, then we can't use them. If you do intend to clean it up by substituting free artwork, audio, etc. and that would make it Fedora eligible, the Fedora Artwork team may be able to help with making free replacements.
> 
> 
> Upstream is already working in replacing the graphics but it is a slow
> process and it seems there are very few people interested in helping.
>
As suggested above, may be submit the issue to Fedora Artwork team ? I
quickly browsed Artwork and Games SIGs pages, but I didn't see anything
targeted toward helping with graphics replacement though, but I might
just have been too fast.

> I don't know what's the status of the original nonfree graphics. It
> might be daunting to know because the original game is quite old
> having been released almost two decades ago.
> 
There is a ticket opened with upstream about this issue.
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2349520&group_id=42434&atid=433129
The last 2 comments are from me. I hope upstream can update us on the
graphics licensing status.

> BTW, I think that this is the same issue xrick has and xrick is in RPM
> Fusion nonfree.
> http://www.bigorno.net/xrick/download.html
>
So either we'll get pushover in RPM Fusion or we'll loose xrick ? hohum...

> Bye,
> 
> Andrea.

Cheers,
Xavier