El ds 10 de 03 de 2018 a les 05:38 +0800, James 'Ender' Brown va escriure: > I'm not really sure what outcome you are looking for here...
DFSG #6 warrants use in any field of endeavor. The outcome is either software can be sold, both modified and unmodified, or it is non-free. > Yes. It was pretty obvious to all parties that the license was "weak, > and there are certainly ways to break the spirit legally. By design. I take your word that Revolution was aware. It would help if you could state the same for Flight of the Amazon Queen, Lure of the Temptress, and Drascula. > Without allowing that freedom, we couldn't honor the spirit of the > DFSG. DFSG allows to sell individual software, but the spirit of DFSG does not encourage to break the spirit of licenses. > * "We've decided to trust you and permit re-distribute it > as freeware" > * ".. oh, but we don't want people to sell the game > individually for $$$" This is my concern. You were entrusted with finding a way to effectively forbid the sale of the game. > (very very paraphrased) "Looks good, ship it!" Then you seemed to have found the solution. Section 3 is clear: you may not charge a fee for the game itself. > To be perfectly honest - Debian-legal provided more input on the > wording than Revolution. Let me make this clear: you did nothing wrong by writing a custom license; you asked for help, which is sensible. I do not find related discussions in debian-legal, so I cannot judge what they told you. > This is the same sort of exception already implemented in other > DFSG-approved licenses, They suffer from the same problem; Artistic License 1.0 is not DFSG-compliant. Propagating the error was not the right way. Again, you asked for help, so I do not blame you. > * Honor Revolutions request to limit individual resale > * Satisfy the "fields of endeavor" clause of the DFSG to encourage > Linux Distros able to ship These are incompatible, limiting individual resale breaks the "fields of endeavor" clause. Anyway, Debian can ship games under the non-free component. Debian accepts your license because section 3 is ineffective by using tricks. If you know it, then you deceive by writing a non-binding preamble describing author's intent and a binding section that you present as enforceable. Conflict arises when a Debian user believes section 3 does not really apply, but author believes it does. I thank engine developers and game creators for all your efforts. You provide culture and some freedoms. Now I ask for the right to use for any commercial purpose. Although this report is to clarify a license, I would like to convince authors that individual resale is not a problem. I defend "scammy" behavior because of these reasons: 1. Selling unmodified games encourages conveyance to users unaware of these games. 2. Selling free games, modified or not, propagates free software to users that otherwise are presented with non-free software. 3. Selling modified versions allows to reach more users. E.g., "Bajo un cielo de acero" could be easier to sell in South America. 4. It demonstrates that anyone can make a living out of free software. This reason may not appeal to authors, but it does to free software defenders. Furthermore, while discouraging "scammy" behavior, you also discourage other possibilities which are more likely to happen if the effort can be paid. Examples are full internationalization, source restoration, and game editor. In short, either copyright holders effectively allow to charge a fee for the game itself or they do not. According to your answer, they do. --  https://bugs.debian.org/854825
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature