Bug#461659: warsow: New version of warsow possibly non-distributable.

[Hans de Goede]

Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>   Hello,
> 
> Andres Mejia wrote:
>>    2. Terms defined in this Article, and parenthetically elsewhere,
>> shall throughout this License have the meanings here and there
>> provided. Defined terms may be used in the singular or plural.
>> Definitions:
>>
>>       � The "Material", below, refers to any such material or work,
>> and a "work based on the Material" means either the Material or any
>> Derivative Work under copyright law.
>>
>>       � "Derivative Work" shall mean a work containing the Material or
>> a portion of it, such as a revision, modification, enhancement,
>> adaptation, translation (including compilation or recompilation by
>> computer), abridgement, condensation, expansion, or any other form in
>> which such preexisting works may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
>> and that, if prepared without authorization of the owner of the
>> copyright in such preexisting work, would constitute a copyright
>> infringement.
>>
>>       � Each licensee is addressed as "you".
>>
>>    3. You may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, sell, participate
>> in the transfer or sale or reproduce, create Derivative Works from,
>> distribute, perform, display or in any way exploit any of the Material
>> released under this License unless expressly permitted by the Warsow
>> Team.
>>
>>    4. You may freely distribute the Warsow archive/installer
>> unmodified on any media. You may re-compress using different archival
>> formats suitable for your OS (i.e. zip/tgz/rpm/deb/dmg), any changes
>> beyond that require explicit permission of the Chasseur de bots
>> association.
>>
>> Clause 3 of this license goes against clauses 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 of the
>> Open Source Definition (and thus the DFSG). This to me most likely
>> makes the new version of warsow unsuitable for distribution through
>> Debian.
> 
>   Completely agree. That also excludes distributing in non-free, because
> 'modification' includes compilation according to clause 2. So its either
> a binary repackaged blurb or nothing. Better it be nothing. You probably
> should tag the new upstream version bug as wontfix.
> 

1) This is the content license only, the engine is GPL
2) Even then I agree the new license is bad, has anyone actually tried
    contacting upstream and kindly asking them to change the license back,
    or otherwise improve their licensing scheme?

Regards,

Hans