missing project page

If you were sharing it with someone, it could have been altered. If you never touched it, then just wait a day and it SHOULD appear again! Works for me when I have download problems, which is sort of similar to this.

I wasn't sharing it with anyone else yet. What happened to it?

From the page:
"If this is blocking your work, let us know by asking a question at Launchpad Support. Include the error ID OOPS-1777G89 in your message. "

Just wait a day and it SHOULD show up.

Are you sure this is the right url?

Pretty sure. I know this because the Launchpad search crawler hasn't re-indexed to reflect its absence. See for yourself:
https://launchpad.net/+search?field.text=avaneya

Click first link.

Dunno then, all you can do is wait. The reason why I say wait until tomorrow is because this is similar to Karma and how it adds on the next day.....

I deactivated the project after contacting you via email on 2010-10-15, 2010-10-16, and 2010-11-01. The project does not qualify for free hosting because the license discriminates against commercial endeavours (CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0). I can reactivate the project. You have a choice of changing the license or purchasing a commercial subscription.

Hey Curtis. I never received any email from you, I just double checked (kip at thevertigo dot com). I also wrote back twice, on 10-10-16 and on 10-10-22 offering a clarification to <email address hidden>. Both times I received no response and both times I requested a return receipt. =(

The emails were sent by me as a member launchpad team team, I trigger them to be sent, I do not see your replies in the commercial inbox that I am subscribed to. Regardless. since you seem to want to keep you project, I have reactivated it. You are free to change the license or purchase a commercial subscription.

Chris, I check my spam filter every day and I swear that I never got your emails. What is your address you sent from?

This first email was sent by Launchpad (Launchpad <email address hidden>) a few minutes after you registered the project. The 2nd and 3rd emails were sent by me (Curtis Hovey <email address hidden>). All the email originates from smtp.canonical.com. Your project page also states "Purchasing a subscription is required" The link to licensing policies also in that same paragraph.

Many users assume that since CC has a NC rule, that the license is considered to be free by organisations like FSF and the OSI. Both organisations (and Launchpad) do not recognise any licenses that discriminates against persons, groups or against fields of endeavour to be free.

Hey Curtis. It appears as though the page was tampered with hastily before the admins took the opportunity to read the game FAQ.

(1) I have no emails from you at all, I just checked through my entire IMAP archive. The first automated one I received, but the ones from you I did not. Try sending me a test one now.

(2) The "Purchasing a subscription is required" you cite is something I didn't put on the page, but Launchpad appended of their own accord. You don't need to purchase anything to play the game single or multiplayer. If you want to play multiplayer on the official server, there is a paid membership, but you aren't required to play on our server, or any multiplayer for that matter. This is addressed in the FAQ. This is the same to Canonical's commercial support for Ubuntu. No one is required to have it, but it's there as an option if a user wishes.

https://www.avaneya.com/faq.html

(3) As for the FSF, I contacted Stallman personally and he has absolutely no problem at all with the licensing of the game data. We talked at length on this. Not only does he like the game, but he disagreed with what he sees as a misapplication of Debian's policy of free / non-free as applied to works of artistic authorship, in what was originally intended for software. The game's code is licensed under the GPLv3, music under CC-BY-NC-SA, and documentation under GFDL. The non-commercial clause doesn't mean it can't be used for commercial purposes either.

(4) I think the licensing field on the Launchpad page is inflexible because it isn't clear how more than one license can be used (e.g. one for code, another for docs, another for artwork, music, etc.).

The licensing is very flexible. In the licence info field, you only need to state what the license affects for me to approve it. I agree the license is fine, but the way it is written it it is not clear that secondary content is under NC. Most people really do mean the code is is NC.

Update the license info field to: The game's code is licensed under the GPLv3, music under CC-BY-NC-SA, and documentation under GFDL.

Hey Curtis. I have a suggestion for the licensing UI. Ultimately the licensing of a project can be thought of as a set of tuples / pairs. Each is a specific license (e.g. GPLv3) paired with what it is being applied to (e.g. code).

I've also added the clarification to the license info field.