Re: [games sig] Downloader for shareware data files for gpl engines such as vavoom

[Hans de Goede <j w r degoede hhs nl>]

Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Hans de Goede (j w r degoede hhs nl) said: 
> > > > So does this allow free distributing? AFAIK Yes it does (IANAL)
> > > > Is this without restrictions? Well clearly no, the following 
> > > > restrictions are made:
> > > > -distribution must be free of charge, except normal access fees
> > > > -by electronic means only
> > > > -distributed only in a compressed format
> > > Right now we structure things so people can redistribute
> > > any CDs of Core or Extras that they want, or freely *build
> > > OSes on top of them*.
> > How does this stop redistribution on CD, its normal access fees only, 
> > electronic and still an rpm thus compressed or ... ?
>
> Someone building an OS on top of it may not qualify for the
> 'normal access fees' test.

Someone building an OS on top would be in trouble with any freely 
distributable content, as freely distributable != being able to build on 
top of it. This thus seems a non argument as the guidelines talk about 
"to freely distribute" wich clear != "to build a(n) XXXX on top of it"

Also releated but unanswered from my first reply:
"Thus appearantly shareware data-files are ok content, due to the nature 
of shareware (this is a limited version pay us for the full version) the 
datafiles are almost by definition not for commercial use. (The rights 
for commercial use is clearly reservered by the copyright, through the 
full version and possible other versions)."

Since there is a clear exception for shareware content (not code!) and 
you've not shown any _distributing_ restrictions I believe that the 
discussed content license is OK.

> > > Anything that would require 'oh, you can't include this package
> > > XXX in something you base on Fedora' isn't really feasible.
> > This isn't really true actually there has been discussion in the past 
> > about allowing non-commercial (scientific) software into FE and although 
> > it was never allowed, it was never denied either afaik this decision 
> > still has to be made in the mean time it seems everyone is acting as if 
> > this was denied.
> >
> > Also in the past it has been discussed wether we actually want to cater 
> > CD creation again no decision was made.
>
> Why would you want to prevent it?

I'm not saying that we want to prevent it, I actually agree that we 
should cater CD creation, but this is not official policy.

Neither was the non-commercial issue ever decided. Although it does seem 
to have become policy, a policy which I BTW fully agree with (for code 
not for content).

Regards,

Hans