License evaluation sought
Hi,
I would like to have the list members' opinion on the following
license, which is about to be applied to the data files of an old
adventure game:
~~~
Preamble:
Basically, give this game away, share it with your friends. Don't
remove this Readme, or pretend you wrote it. You can include it in a
software collection, like a linux distribution or coverdisk (which
may be sold), but using it in things like commercial adventure game
collections without asking is just playing dirty. This preamble is
not legally binding, but is to clarify the intent of the following
license.
License:
1) You may distribute this game for free on any medium, provided this
readme and all associated copyright notices and disclaimers are left
intact.
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
readme 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.
4) All game content is (C) Revolution Software Ltd. The ScummVM
engine is (C) The ScummVM Team (www.scummvm.org)
5) THE GAMEDATA IN THIS ARCHIVE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING AND NOT LIMITED TO ANY
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
~~~
At first I had my doubts about paragraph 3, but after having read
the Artistic license, whose paragraph 5 involves the same restriction
while still being DFSG-free, I would assume this is acceptable for
inclusion in main. But do comment, legalese is not one of my strong
points.
This software will be publically released soon, so swift replies
would be much appreciated -- I might be able to talk upstream into
adjusting the license before releasing, if it is necessary to satisfy
the DFSG.
Thanks in advance,
--
Tore Anderson
Reply to: