Bug#854679: Clarify license for Beneath a Steel Sky

[James 'Ender' Brown]

Hi Javier,

Thanks for the reply!

Reading the other BTS bug you linked, my understanding of the DFSG (and the commonly accepted interpretation)
is the same as Ansgar supplied there:

  * Clause #1 covers re-distribution - must be redistributable freely as
    part of a collection of software.
  * Clause #6 covers 'use' - must be able to be used in all 'fields of endeavor'.
    That means there can be no conditions limiting use to a particular environment,
    it must be permitted for Commercial Use, Government, Military, Education, Home, etc.

That has been the commonly accepted interpretation for a long time, hence why you've
been told by several people that the Artistic License isn't considered to be in
conflict witeh the DFSG for Debian.

> DFSG #6 warrants use in any field of endeavor. The outcome is either
> software can be sold, both modified and unmodified, or it is non-free.

Under the FSF non-free test, sure. But Debian Guidelines are not always in line with FSF, and your
interpreation of DFSG#6 is different than the commonly accepted one.

Debian considers 'Use' to mean 'Actual literally use and operate'. The examples following DFSG#6
supports this common interpretation, as does the very existence of DFSG#1. 'Distribution' and
'Actual Use' are defined in separate clauses and are presented as separate concepts.


This is why Debian officially considers the Artistic License 1.0 DFSG-free, even if the FSF classes
it as a non-free license.

Kind regards,
           Ender
	  Former Co-Lead
           ScummVM Project

--
PS - this is getting a bit off-topic, but in regards to the reasons you provided to encourage permissive
commercial individual sale... I would agree with you wholeheartedly if your first three points didn't start
with the word 'selling' - 'Distributing' or 'Promoting' would fit all of those just as well :P

Sadly (and perhaps I'm missing something obvious), but I don't get how any of the example outcomes you
provid would require (or even benefit!) from permissive Individual Sale. Examples #1, #2 and #4 would seem
to be better served by a collection or curated 'best of' in aggregate (as permitted by DFSG#1).

Most of those outcomes are pretty normal & desired goals, that both Free Software and Indie developers already
achieve via existing means of cross-promotion and of course efforts from their respective communities. Some of
the smaller indies I personally know have literally had their whole marketing campaigns designed and ran by
their core community/fans simply because someone on a forum pointed out not enough people knew about their game.

Meanwhile, if a user just brought a individual game commercially for 'consumption', they are more likely to
come into exposure with the Free Software community, nor learn about the history of the game or other content and creators.