2012/9/2 Gunnar Wolf <[email protected]> > Zoot Zoot dijo [Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 10:36:03PM +0200]: > > (...) > > We've recently found out that someone is selling (...) > > our concern is that this particular vendor does so in a misleading > manner, > > without stating that the game is a development version, full of bugs and > > missing many of the features listed on the vendor's page, and that it can > > be acquired free of cost online. We are worried that this behavior may > lead > > to dissatisfied buyers and ultimately damage the reputation of our > project. > > > > For this reason, we have discussed adding an attribution clause to our > > CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensed artwork in the game that requires a seller to make > > any buyers aware that the game can be downloaded for free from our > website > > prior to the purchase. > > Before adding any texts requiring the user to be informed the version > is still incomplete, consider: What if a hypothetical vendor takes > your code and completes all of the missing features and fixes all of > the bugs, and providing replacement artwork? Requiring such an clause > would then make it impossible for such a vendor to use your (otherwise > free) code with their work. >
The idea would not be to require them to inform the user that the version is incomplete, but rather to have them state upfront that the piece of the software that *we* contributed can be acquired free of charge from our website. If at that point the prospective buyer still prefer the vendor's derived (possibly greatly improved) product, that's perfectly fine. All we're concerned about are those cases where the buyer may not realize that they are 'being had' until it's too late. > > To the best of my knowledge CC-BY-SA 3.0 affords us the ability to add > such > > a clause, and to the best of my knowledge CC-BY-SA 3.0 is compatible with > > the DFSG. > > > > I would like to ask whether you all agree that adding such a clause to a > > Debian package would be compatible with the DFSG and other relevant > > guidelines? > > It is often tempting to add a seemingly simple provision to a licence > text. This often results in an incompatible, nonfree license. Try hard > not to add that provision - I would expect the decision with such a > license to have a rationale similar to the GFDL: We consider it free > as long as there are no cover texts or invariant sections. Were you to > add a mandatory paragraph to your work's derivations, it would fail in > a similar way. > I realize it's generally frowned upon when people try to add non-standard license terms. In most cases, I agree it's a bad idea - particularly when it's done for reasons of competitiveness/profitability. In my opinion, it's bit less straightforward when it's the user's interests on the line. Yeah, we can say: "screw the user", but it's not something we're happy to do. > > Of course, bear in mind that debian-legal is _in_no_way_ an official > Debian decision body, that role is delegated to the ftp-masters > team. Most of the opinions in this list are not even by Debian > Developers - But they might be useful for _your_ analysis of the > situation. > I appreciate it. Is there a process for getting the ftp-masters' opinion (other than potentially having the package removed by trial-and-error)? Thanks.
