[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: warsow: New version of warsow possibly non-distributable.

Vincent Fourmond wrote:

Andres Mejia wrote:
   2. Terms defined in this Article, and parenthetically elsewhere,
shall throughout this License have the meanings here and there
provided. Defined terms may be used in the singular or plural.

      � The "Material", below, refers to any such material or work,
and a "work based on the Material" means either the Material or any
Derivative Work under copyright law.

      � "Derivative Work" shall mean a work containing the Material or
a portion of it, such as a revision, modification, enhancement,
adaptation, translation (including compilation or recompilation by
computer), abridgement, condensation, expansion, or any other form in
which such preexisting works may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
and that, if prepared without authorization of the owner of the
copyright in such preexisting work, would constitute a copyright

      � Each licensee is addressed as "you".

   3. You may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, sell, participate
in the transfer or sale or reproduce, create Derivative Works from,
distribute, perform, display or in any way exploit any of the Material
released under this License unless expressly permitted by the Warsow

   4. You may freely distribute the Warsow archive/installer
unmodified on any media. You may re-compress using different archival
formats suitable for your OS (i.e. zip/tgz/rpm/deb/dmg), any changes
beyond that require explicit permission of the Chasseur de bots

Clause 3 of this license goes against clauses 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 of the
Open Source Definition (and thus the DFSG). This to me most likely
makes the new version of warsow unsuitable for distribution through

  Completely agree. That also excludes distributing in non-free, because
'modification' includes compilation according to clause 2. So its either
a binary repackaged blurb or nothing. Better it be nothing. You probably
should tag the new upstream version bug as wontfix.

1) This is the content license only, the engine is GPL
2) Even then I agree the new license is bad, has anyone actually tried
   contacting upstream and kindly asking them to change the license back,
   or otherwise improve their licensing scheme?



Reply to: