| 1 |
Alexander, aseprite-gpl is not ready yet for packaging. Technically it is |
| 2 |
1.1.7 version with some cosmetic changes. Currently there no big difference |
| 3 |
between aseprite-gpl HEAD and tarballed 1.1.7, so I'd prefer to take |
| 4 |
tarball from original source. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
OK, to summarize. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I'll create new package dev-games/aseprite-gpl and move all ebuilds there |
| 9 |
from aseprite. In original dev-games/aseprite I'll create new version with |
| 10 |
Aseprite-EULA license from @EULA group and RESTRICT="bindist mirror". |
| 11 |
Correct? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
2016-12-08 21:10 GMT+05:00 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> >>>>> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Azamat Hackimov wrote: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> > I'm maintainer of dev-games/aseprite package. After version 1.1.7 |
| 18 |
> > developer changed license from GPL-2 to own EULA license[1]. Can I |
| 19 |
> > continue to maintain this package in portage tree under these |
| 20 |
> > conditions? |
| 21 |
> > As I can see, we can't redistribute source code - 2(b) clause, so |
| 22 |
> > there already RESTRICT="mirror". Sources are still available in |
| 23 |
> > Github and author intends to continue to do so. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I don't see a problem with maintaining the package. Presumably, the |
| 26 |
> license should be added to the @EULA group. And the ebuild needs |
| 27 |
> RESTRICT="mirror bindist" because any built binaries cannot be |
| 28 |
> distributed either. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I also agree that the free version should be kept if possible. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Ulrich |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> > [1] https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/blob/master/EULA.txt |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
From Siberia with Love! |
Archives