So after going through this I just opted to put "None" in the license field, but if you know of a better way please tell me and I'll change it.
#Dwarf fortress newb pack main index install#
Another option would be trying to get my packages into a repository such as rpmfusion_nonfree, but then users that would like to install the pack would need to go through the process of setting up that repository, which again hinders the usability of the package.
But, given that it's impossible for my package to be included in fedora's standard package distribution (because dwarf fortress is not open source, concretely not under a free license) this would mean having a bunch of different packages that people would have to download and install, which would destroy the main value add that I believe packages provide, that is easy management (if a lot of packages were to be installed locally then when you wanted to uninstall the pack you'd have to directly remove all the packages that had been installed). So with this high variety of different licenses, what should I put in the License field? I looked it up on the packaging guidelines and it seems that the way this should be done is by packaging each of these components into a different package, so the License fields of each of these components can be accurate.
It's suitable for anybody - in the event that. The problem is that the pack contains a lot of content from a bunch of different sources, and each one of these has a different license: - There are 16 fonts under unspecified licenses - PyLNP under the ISC license - Some small scripts added by Enay that are unlicensed - A copy of dwarf fortress, which uses several libraries (eg: SDL) under different licenses - Several graphics packs - dfhack, dwarf therapist and several other mods, also under several licenses - A ton of different libraries (eg: protobuf), also under different licenses The Starter Pack packs Dwarf Fortress Lazy Newb Pack with tremendous group redesigns - illustrations, instruments, bugfixes, and a great deal more. You are right, currently I set the License field to "None" because I wasn't able to find something that would match the licensing variety found in the pack.
0 kommentar(er)
