Talk:SuperTuxKart

Game should not be here (yet). They have non-free licenses, although they are trying to get rid of them. This is from the top part of the COPYING file distributed with the 0.7.1-rc1 release: The SuperTuxKart code is released under GNU GPL (see full text below). SuperTuxKart data files (textures, models, sounds, music, etc.) are released under various licenses, see 'license.txt' files through the various data subdirectories. Data files are released under a mixture of the following licenses :

Gnu GPL 2.0 and 3.0+ Creative-Commons-BY(-SA) 3.0 Creative-Commons-Sampling+ 1.0 SoundSnap license Public Domain

So there should be at least a waring in the top of the article. Gallaecio 09:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Luckily this issue was resolved in 0.8: --Gamfan (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2013 (CEST)

deletion review
I'm adding a deletion review as I've found some licensing issues (FGD post): many files have unclear licenses but more importantly at least two characters are non-free (Beastie and Hexley, their non-standard licenses allow uses only to individuals and only within "good tastes"). --Drummyfish (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2021 (CEST)


 * I'm sticking my head in a hornet's nest by even trying to comment but here I go anyway: It isn't fully clear to me. The first issue being the overlap between copyright and trademark. Software, including fully free software, generally uses all sorts of trademarks. At the very least there has to be a project name, which itself brings in a trademark. These trademarks raise the same concerns as the copyright licences attached to these two characters (depending of course on local law). If I used the mascot of some project which happens to be under a permissive copyright licence in a distasteful way, then depending on country I could be just as much in the wrong as with these licences prohibiting it. In my opinion this needs to be something specifically clarified by LGW rules. If I simply fork a project then the fork could be trademark infringement if I don't replace a lot of the artwork&mdash;something which isn't generally considered to make the work non-free. If I, personally, have to follow the rules pedantically as I read them I would exclude the game but I don't think that was the intent of the rule. It also isn't clear to me how to interpret it in light of US law (where LGW was created AFAIK) which is so very permissive with parody. This means that the non-free licensing of the original characters might not apply to US distribution of their depictions in the game. FacelessLinuxUser (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2021 (CET)


 * I think you're stretching the point here a bit, FacelessLinuxUser. The two mascots are explicitly marked all-rights-reserved, that means no derivatives either and the code license doesn't change any of that. I see your point, but it's probably the mascots' license that would have to change, not LGW policy. Still, I'd opt for communicating with the STK team - to push them to get in touch with the respective copyright holders, or remove these mascots from the default set - along with a little lenience for this specific beloved project. Modanung (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2022 (CET)


 * You may well be right. Unfortunately getting special permission for STK wouldn't fix the problem&mdash;it would make the game assets explicitly non-Free. Very permissive US fair use laws for parody are a headache, because there are now two rights holders involved and one of them is using a restrictive license which the other can legally circumvent without (necessarily) passing that benefit over to subsequent derivatives. It depends whether you consider such licensing to still be Free, which is why the FSF had to act on tivoization and patents. Media rather than SW but to quote the FSF, "A free license may not require compliance with the license of a nonfree program." As I said, by my reading of the policy it would have to be excluded. (It's so strict I couldn't even upload a BSD icon for fair use.) Being patient and solving the problem over wiping the article, yes, but I don't foresee a quick solution short of convincing STK to take them out or relaxing LGW policy. FacelessLinuxUser (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2022 (CET)


 * My first impression from the STK community is that there is no intention of resolving the matter. Modanung (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2022 (CET)


 * Not the news I want to hear but unsurprising. People are rather loose with licensing. (IMO not their fault&mdash;the arcane IP system is incongruent with human nature.) Perhaps by a long chance somebody reading this has good rapport with someone in STK, or Debian, or something related to get a discussion taken seriously. Sad that there are so many good projects out there where even one single file messes with the license of the whole instead of being placed in an expansion pack. You know as well as I. Zero-K with the music. Kernel Panic with the maps. Etc. FacelessLinuxUser (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2022 (CET)


 * I wouldn't give up hope just yet; it does seem like the inquiry has started a discussion. Modanung (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2022 (CET)

How does Debian deal with it, just omit the two characters from their repo? Arlo James Barnes (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2022 (CET)