On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:21, Joel Baker wrote: > The TinyMUSH package is not DFSG-free, Agreed. There are some additional problems: > * TinyMUSH 3.0 Copyright > * > * Users of this software incur the obligation to make their best efforts to > * inform the authors of noteworthy uses of this software. Fails the desert island test (though the desert island test originally was modifications, so this may be even worse). > * > * All materials developed as a consequence of the use of this software > * shall duly acknowledge such use, in accordance with the usual standards > * of acknowledging credit in academic research. Unclear, but I don't see a problem here as long as its interpreted reasonably. It is possible that if interpreted less nicely, this would contaminate other works (for example, are data files used with the package covered?) > * > * TinyMUSH 3.0 may be used for commercial, for-profit applications, subject > * to the following conditions: You must acknowledge the origin of the > * software, retaining this copyright notice in some prominent place. > * You may charge only for access to the service you provide, not for > * the TinyMUSH 3.0 software itself. You must inform the authors of any > * commercial use of this software. Informing thing again. > To the best of my knowlege, there is nothing in any of the licenses > involved in any version of TinyMUSH which would prevent distribution, even > in patched binary form, so it should be fine for non-free No. Nothing in that license gives us permission to modify, copy, or distribute that software. By default, we don't have those permissions.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part