Re: License evaluation sought
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:08:37PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> may be sold), but using it in things like commercial adventure game
> collections without asking is just playing dirty.
I'm fairly sure that the license does not actually accomplish
this. Presumably it refers to clause 3:
> 3) You may not charge a fee for the game itself. This includes
> reselling the game as an individual item.
However, this is easy to get around by anyone who wants to.
"Buy this nifty screensaver and get an adventure game FREE!"
Clause 3 squeaks by as DFSG-free only because it is ineffective :-)
I think it would be very hard to write a clause that would
forbid selling of adventure game collections, but permit
selling Debian distributions which contain lots of adventure
games. And even if you manage it, that will make the license
non-free. (Well, more non-free.)
Given how little real difference there is between the cases
I named, it might be worthwhile to find out what the author
finds objectionable about "commercial adventure game collections".
It might be possible to isolate just that. Is he assuming
that all such collections will be binary-only, for example?
Richard Braakman
Reply to: