X-Debbugs-CC: James 'Ender' Brown <en...@scummvm.org>, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
El dj 09 de 02 de 2017 a les 15:35 +0100, Markus Koschany va escriure: > The game license is fully DFSG compliant. This has been discussed at > length in the past, e.g. https://bugs.debian.org/478898 I have read again that bug report and its references. Discussion has happened over the availability of source code, editors, trademarks, and logos. One relevant discussion in debian-legal is https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00546.html. It looks like this is the same problem with Bitstream Vera font: no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by itself. Another one is https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00009.html. It seems to be a problem similar to the use of the Artistic license: You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. It appears these licenses are considered DFSG compliant because this kind of clauses are deemed ineffective. https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00016.html The Artistic license in base-files looks like Artistic License 1.0. The GNU project has not made an extensive analysis of this license: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense and they recommend to avoid its use. The Clarified Artistic License fixes this sentence: You may not charge a license fee for the right to use this Package itself. If these clauses are indeed ineffective, why do authors include them anyway? It is said that you can effectively sell the software itself by applying a trick: pretend to sell a "nifty screensaver", even sell a whole free distro such as Debian. But as I am afraid, a judge may see through that and conclude that you are applying a trick and effectively selling the software itself. Do you know about any actual sentences regarding this facet? Does this make the licenses fit for international use?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
