2008/4/14, Jack Coulter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I asked around on the Teeworlds IRC channel, they pointed me to the > following thread on thier forums: > http://www.teeworlds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=957 > > The second post, by user matricks (matricks = copyright holder) clarifies > this: > > "We don't restrict selling it as a part of a bigger distribution like > ubuntu and stuff like that. What we are restricting is that you can't sell > just teeworlds and take money except for the media cost. This license was > discussed in great length and input were taken from some fedora legal guy > (can't remember the name). The SIL Open Font Licence contains a similar > statement and is considered to be free by the FSF guys."
I don't understand the purpose of that clause then, as it can be easily circumvented (with that interpretation, it would be a matter of just adding something else to the media). I don't see the point about adding a clause that adds no protection at all. I still don't feel that it's DFSG-free, but if there are already packages in the archive with similar clauses, ftpmasters will probably consider it DFSG-free. It's OK for me, I don't consider it such a serious issue as to arguing its inclusion in main, I was just curious about whether it was considered free enough or not. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]