Hi! * Miriam Ruiz <little.miry@gmail.com> [080414 18:04]: > > 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. That is a so ridiculous license term... You could just to an "echo '' > .sh" and you appearently bundled it together with a script which doesn nothing. > 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. Talked to Jörg Jaspert about that (you need to do something during work time, don't you?), and this clause is indeed free (since it's so ridiculous easy to circumvent^W fullfill). So for the sake of gaming, bundle it with any kind of script, and be done with it. Yours sincerely, Alexander
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature