On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 08:05, Tore Anderson wrote:
> As a few has pointed out, this does not allow for modifying and
> redistributing modified versions. I believe the only chance I have
> to make the copyright holder accept such a clause, would be through
> making it pass DFSG clause 4.
>
> Therefore, I'm about to suggest the copyright holder adds the
> following clause to the above license:
>
> * You may modify the game as you wish. You may distribute this
> modified version if, and only if, it is done by the means of
> distributing files that modify the game ("patch files")
> alongside the original (unmodified) version of the game.
>
> Based on the replies I got to my original request for help, I
> believe this passes the DFSG (even though it may be because of
> ineffectiveness). However, I want to have ascertained that what
> I suggest actually is DFSG-compliant, before I ask the copyright
> holder to add it.
>
> So my question is: Would the above license with the added clause
> pass the DFSG? If no, why not?DFSG #4 only applies to source code; is there a concept of a "binary" for this game? If so, it won't pass #4 unless modified binaries may be distributed. If there's not a concept of a binary... I really don't know. I don't think DFSG #4 has ever been invoked for software that doesn't have a clear delination between source and binary formats. Personally, I don't like it. Use of DFSG4 (beyond "The license may require... a different name") isn't really encouraged, and if one can't distributed modified binaries because there are no binaries, the software feels very non-free to me. The process to install modified versions would be like Debian installs PINE now. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
