Phone reply, keeping it short ... On Tue, Sep 9, 2025, 03:29 Andrea Pappacoda <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...] > I'll now try to reply to some of the points Michael made in an attempt to > better understand these kinds of things. > > On Sat Aug 30, 2025 at 8:43 PM CEST, Michael Lustfield wrote: > > [...] > > Assuming the remainder of the application meets DFSG, then I'd say the > > bar for "non-commercial" was met as well. > > Why though? To me, "non-commercial" is a clear violation of point 6 of > the DFSG, "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". But see below. > > [...] > I have another idea instead. Assuming that by "non-commercial" they > meant to prohibit usage in non-free projects, but allow usage in > DFSG-free projects, this clause does not pose any additional restriction This is essentially the point I was making. The intent was clear that open source projects can use it. Whatever a company does with the open source project is not part of the consideration. Ultimately, a company would need to consider both licenses per their application. Usage is fine, sale may require modification. ... Iseweasel? > on melonDS. This is because melonDS is GPL, and the GPL imposes that the > work always stays GPL - hence free. So the case where these > illustrations, included in melonDS, are used inside a larger > non-open-source project does not ever happen. This is absolutely not how licenses work. The license applied to the work in question remains the license for that work. Including it in another project does not change that. You may be conflating this with derivative work, which is nuanced. I shared a link to the license. That is the license of this work. The questions you should have should apply to DFSG-freeness of this license, not whether or not you can change that license. >
