Comment 10 for bug 268397

I got a response from upstream and have attached an updated correspondence file. While I would recommend reading the correspondence, the only thing decisively determined is to see the following forum URL:

http://www.happypenguin.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4725

I fully recommend reading the entire forum thread, but I'll quote some important parts with comments.

Upstream author: "It's Stephen Sweeney of Parallel Realities here, the guys that brought you Project: Starfighter, Metal Blob Solid, Virus Killer, and Blob And Conquer."

All four of these games are included in Debian/Ubuntu and contain non-free data. The problem is, therefore, much bigger than expected.

Upstream author: "You do know that the GPL only applies to software, right? ie - the program code? [sic] ... I'm not going to say anything more on the subject of the GPL and licenses because this isn't what I started this thread to do (and I'm actually rather annoyed that you decided to hijack it to vent your spleen). All I'll say is that there are HUNDREDS of GPL'd games that include non-free assets, because the authors' opinion was that the GPL applied only to their code, as did I. "

This brings up the question if there might be other non-free data besides just music and sounds, e.g. artwork/graphics, text, etc; in other words anything other than code.

Upstream does not use a distributed version control system, which may explain their reluctance to make any game modifications (burn-out). Luckily:

Upstream author: "Once Blob And Conquer is 'finished' (or rather, has hit v1.00) I'll likely be looking for maintainers for the other projects, since my time on them will be done. "

Version 1.0 was released on August 17. This suggests that the development for Blob Wars might become more transparent (e.g. version control system for code development), letting the community "liberate" the game.

Upstream author: "I found the sound effects by doing web searches for things like "pistol" and "punch" and "splat" and stuff like that."

Which of course means they were not necessarily free in the sense of freedom. And there is no proof without a doubt that it isn't illegal to distribute the files. From what was said in the thread, it seems more serious in terms of legality.

Another User: "For the "non-free" resources, since nobody yet gave much information about *what* resources actually are affected, and *what* permissions to use and/or distribute them, under *which* conditions, I'm pretty unsure. Basically, without written permission to distribute them freely, You and me and Stephen could be sued. Without written permission to use them, users could be sued."

Same User: "@Stephen [upstream author]: I know that this posting looks very different from what I wrote the other day, but I wasn't aware of the fact that you collected some of the data files from random sources; instead, I thought that the only problem was that some of the files weren't "free enough" in the FSF/GNU way (for example, "free to use, distribute, but don't modify the shit"). But this problem *really* is different. Should you have a list of URLs from where you got the resources, that'd be *really* helpful; such a list would allow to check what's distributable and what must be replaced by other files."

This really should make us think twice about just separating the package and moving the music and sounds to multiverse.

Upstream author: "Okay. I've removed the binaries of Blob Wars : Metal Blob Solid, Blob Wars : Blob and Conquer, Project: Starfighter, and Virus Killer from my website. I've also updated Happy Penguin to list the games as non free."

Upstream author: "I've also written to the package maintainers of Ubuntu, Fedora, SUSE, and Gentoo to let them know the packages are illegal."

Upstream author: "An overreaction? No, because, as I am reminded constantly, Linux could be sued. Well, I've updated my website to now only carry tar balls and have added a note that the resources are Non Free, so should not be distributed with Linux or carried in any of their repositories."

At least this explains the license notice terms.

The most important point is a post quoting from an email by the upstream author.

Upstream author: "So, to clarify, the source code, data sets and graphics are Free. The rest is unknown (but as far as I'm concerned, I'm just redistributing assets that were already available freely)."

Since the upstream author is finished with development of the game, he is unlikely to cooperate with GNU/Linux distributions. That basically leaves it to us, and unfortunately the sources of the data in the game is not documented.

A lot of uncertainty here, so I think the decision on what to do should be placed on person(s) with more experience (debian-legal?).