El ds 10 de 03 de 2018 a les 05:38 +0800, James 'Ender' Brown va
>  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 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.[1] 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

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
     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.

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/854825

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to