Re: License evaluation sought
* 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".