Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

[Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net>]

On 9/30/2015 1:51 AM, Reco wrote:
> 	Hi.
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 08:57:13PM -0700, Seeker wrote:
>
> > If you think of non-free in terms of Debian non-free, then non-free and proprietary
> > can be different things. That gets into a whole different hornets nest.
> Evaluate here, please. I honestly can not grasp this concept.
>
> Reco
amiwm is in non-free. It includes source. It allows redistribution, but 
specifies "for non-commercial use".
You are allowed to make changes, but not allowed to redistribute 
modified binaries or source. Not bad in
the proprietary black box kind of way. But it is bad in the sense that 
it looks unmaintained and lack of
ability to redistribute changes will eventually become an issue.

There is angband-audio, that looks to be under some form of Creative 
Commons license.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

Cuneiform is in non-free, don't know why that is since following the 
link to what is listed as the
home page indicates the license is "Simplified BSD License".

 https://launchpad.net/cuneiform-linux/

There is game stuff in non-free where the game engine is open source, 
but the level data is either
not included, requiring you to have a game disk or demo version to 
extract the data from, or game
data is under more restrictive license.

I'm fine with game data being under a restrictive license with an open 
source license on the engine,
that still allows game developers to use the engine with independently 
developed levels and allows
the game engine to continue being updated so I can continue to play the 
game with it's original levels
in the future as long as I have access to that level data.

Then there are issues with documentation under GFDL license not meeting 
DFSG requirements due
to the invariant text clause.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License

It's not all a black and white issue, there are several shades of grey 
in the mix as well.

And I appreciate the way Debian developers deal with these things on 
behalf of those who create
Custom Debian Distributions and redistribute them, but still having 
non-free separately available for
us individual users.

Later, Seeker