From: "Anthony J. Bentley" <bentley@openbsd.org>
Subject: Re: NEW: games/zork
To: ports@openbsd.org
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2025 13:31:27 -0700

Stuart Henderson writes:
> On 2025/11/21 20:41, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> > Stuart Henderson writes:
> > > what do you think about a bit of rearrangement to give a framework for
> > > the other games too? e.g. putting this in ports/games/infocom/zork{1,2,3}
> > > and installing to /usr/local/share/infocom? i'll happily add some of
> > > the other games. they have hhgttg, planetfall, deadline, etc.
> > > https://github.com/historicalsource?language=&page=2&q=infocom&sort=&tab=repo
> > > sitories
> > 
> > So far only Zork 1/2/3 have been freely licensed. The rest of those
> > repositories are sadly of unclear legal provenance.
>
> That's a pity. We could still include them in ports with packages and
> distfiles disabled for those though. 

IMO, providing ports with PERMIT_*=No is for stuff like freeware where
right to download has been explicitly or implicitly granted, but
modification or redistribution have not. Here we have more a case of
abandonware, where *no* rights have been granted, and the code is being
downloaded from a third party but the copyright holder doesn't care,
probably. I don't consider abandonware appropriate in ports.

> > > might be worth mentioning gargoyle (pkg_add garglk) in the readme,
> > > it's a bit prettier than console frotz, and a lot prettier than sfrotz.
> > 
> > Sure, here's a version with gargoyle mentioned in the README.
>
> Here's a set of hhgttg, zork, deadline, planetfall. What do you think?

I would love to have all of these in ports but I don't think we should.
We should stick to Zork. We can always add the others if the copyright
situation changes.