Re: Inc. logo in game data (lure-of-the-temptress)
On Monday 05 May 2008 10:16:41 am Ivan Vucica wrote:
> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Gonéri Le Bouder wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 04:01:28PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > >
> > > 2) You may charge a reasonable copying fee for this archive, and
> > >
> > > may distribute it in aggregate as part of a larger & possibly
> > > commercial software distribution (such as a Linux distribution or
> > > magazine coverdisk). You must provide proper attribution and
> > > ensure this license and all associated copyright notices, and
> > > disclaimers are left intact.
> > >
> > > 3) You may not charge a fee for the game itself. This includes
> > > reselling the game as an individual item.
> > >
> > > Anyway 2 and 3 in not DFSG ok. 2 because "reasonable copying fee" is
> > >
> > > not clear enough and 3 since the DFSG #1 ("The license of a Debian
> > > component may not restrict any party from selling...")
> >
> > I do not think this section makes the license non-free. The terms seem
> > similar to the Artistic license which is explicitly listed as a free
> > software license [1].
> >
> > This is article 5 of the Artistic license:
> > You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this
> > Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this
> > Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However, you
> > may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly
> > commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial)
> > software distribution provided that you do not advertise this
> > Package as a product of your own. [...]
>
> On the contrary, item no. 3 in the LOTT license says:
> > You may not charge a fee for the game itself.
>
> If my English serves me, that not the same as artistic license's:
> > You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this
> > Package.
> > ....
> > You may not charge a fee for this Package itself.
>
> Artistic license says that you may charge for act of distributing the
> package, but not for the package itself.
> LOTT license says you may not charge for the package at all, not even
> for act of distributing it.
This still is similar to the Artistic license's wording.
"You may not charge a fee for this Package itself."
This seems ok to me. Probably best to ask at debian-legal.
> Which means LOTT license restricts reselling, and that distributors of
> Debian may not charge for the medium they ship Debian on. And that's
> probably the primary reason why it's not considered DFSG free.
--
Regards,
Andres
Reply to: