> Is this even free software (FSF definition)? It does not use any widely > known (to me at least) free software license. On the site it is said it > is distributed as freeware under Floodgap Free Software License. Reading > the license it seems it is really freeware. It is stated at the > beginning of the license that the software is released at no cost, but > it is not Copyleft or GPL. I assume this makes it GPL incompatible, but > still does not make it non-free. Later it is said it is forbidden to > sell or rent the package, or derivative works made out of it. I say this > is not free software. Anyone else?
The package might be sold while including e.g. GNU Emacs with it, but it must be also provided gratis (unlike OFL). The requirement to copyright derivative versions is strange, it's not obvious for me if it might prevent including public domain modifications. GPL incompatibility is bad, but it doesn't prevent a package from being included in free distros, unlike, most probably, the selling restriction. Since the license is complex and uses strange definitions, it's very possible that it has other problems.
pgpbGF172uXuk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
