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

Re: License evaluation sought

* Joe Wreschnig

 >  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 distributed.

  No, this is the 'source code', at least in the way the GPL defines
 it (preferred form of modification).  You can think of it as a Perl
 script, for instance -- there's no compilation process involved, and
 what's distributed in the source package is basically the same that's
 distributed in the binary package.

 >  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.

  I agree, and myself I'd prefer just using the Artistic license or
 something.  But I'm not the copyright holder, so it's not up to
 me.  And I do not think it's possible to hope for more than the
 clause I just suggested.  As the DFSG puts it;  "this is a compromise".

Tore Anderson

Reply to: