* Joe Wreschnig > 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.
No, this is the 'source code', at least in the way the GPL defines it (preferred form of modification). You can think of it as a Perl script, for instance -- there's no compilation process involved, and what's distributed in the source package is basically the same that's distributed in the binary package. > 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. I agree, and myself I'd prefer just using the Artistic license or something. But I'm not the copyright holder, so it's not up to me. And I do not think it's possible to hope for more than the clause I just suggested. As the DFSG puts it; "this is a compromise". -- Tore Anderson
