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

Re: License evaluation sought

On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 08:05, Tore Anderson wrote:
>   As a few has pointed out, this does not allow for modifying and
>  redistributing modified versions.  I believe the only chance I have
>  to make the copyright holder accept such a clause, would be through
>  making it pass DFSG clause 4.
>   Therefore, I'm about to suggest the copyright holder adds the
>  following clause to the above license:
>     * You may modify the game as you wish.  You may distribute this
>       modified version if, and only if, it is done by the means of
>       distributing files that modify the game ("patch files")
>       alongside the original (unmodified) version of the game.
>   Based on the replies I got to my original request for help, I
>  believe this passes the DFSG (even though it may be because of
>  ineffectiveness).  However, I want to have ascertained that what
>  I suggest actually is DFSG-compliant, before I ask the copyright
>  holder to add it.
>   So my question is:  Would the above license with the added clause
>  pass the DFSG?  If no, why not?

DFSG #4 only applies to source code; is there a concept of a "binary"
for this game? If so, it won't pass #4 unless modified binaries may be

If there's not a concept of a binary... I really don't know. I don't
think DFSG #4 has ever been invoked for software that doesn't have a
clear delination between source and binary formats.

Personally, I don't like it. Use of DFSG4 (beyond "The license may
require... a different name") isn't really encouraged, and if one can't
distributed modified binaries because there are no binaries, the
software feels very non-free to me. The process to install modified
versions would be like Debian installs PINE now.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: