Re: RFS: teeworlds
2008/4/14, Jack Coulter <jscinoz@gmail.com>:
> I asked around on the Teeworlds IRC channel, they pointed me to the
> following thread on thier forums:
> http://www.teeworlds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=957
>
> The second post, by user matricks (matricks = copyright holder) clarifies
> this:
>
> "We don't restrict selling it as a part of a bigger distribution like
> ubuntu and stuff like that. What we are restricting is that you can't sell
> just teeworlds and take money except for the media cost. This license was
> discussed in great length and input were taken from some fedora legal guy
> (can't remember the name). The SIL Open Font Licence contains a similar
> statement and is considered to be free by the FSF guys."
I don't understand the purpose of that clause then, as it can be
easily circumvented (with that interpretation, it would be a matter of
just adding something else to the media). I don't see the point about
adding a clause that adds no protection at all.
I still don't feel that it's DFSG-free, but if there are already
packages in the archive with similar clauses, ftpmasters will probably
consider it DFSG-free. It's OK for me, I don't consider it such a
serious issue as to arguing its inclusion in main, I was just curious
about whether it was considered free enough or not.
Greetings,
Miry
Reply to: