Re: RFS: sandboxgamemaker
Ben, thank you for your comments:
>> * License : Custom, open-source, I have written permission to package,
>> non-free since author is concerned about it
>> being used to make
> commercial games and thus puts some extra
>> requirements in the license. Some of the
>> user-generated content that
>> is included with the package also has
>> non-commercial clauses.Benn, Thank you for your comments:
> This is incoherent. If the license terms restrict commercial
> redistribution, then the work is not open source (nor is it DFSG-free).
I'm sorry I was not precise with my language. My previous experience
is with GNOME, so I'm still learning the importance of being precise,
and which words to use. The legal issues have been discussed on the
debian-legal mailing list:
The license does not explicitly bar commercial use nor restricts any
endeavour, it just is a non-standard "license." That is why I believe
it should be non-free, since it isn't clear if they intend this to be
DFSG-free nor have they explicitly said it in their license. I hope
that inclusion in the non-free repository would let them see the
benefits of adopting a more standard license that fits their needs to
eventually get this into main in later releases.
> Also, if *you* have written permission from the copyright holder to
> redistribute, be aware that this is effectively part of your license
> terms and needs to be documented verbatim in the package ‘copyright’.
> You'll also need to check whether it passes DFSG §8.
Thanks for the feedback, I will add the email correspondence to the
debian/copyright. To quote their email in response to my asking for
permission to package and distribute their software with Debian and to
be available as an open source project, they responded, "You have my
permission, blessing and support." (There is more too it, which I will
include in the copyright file). In fact, part of the reason they want
it in Debian is so that it would be redistributed into Edubuntu with
the same rights.