Re: FSDG issues of SCUMMVM-based games

[zimoun]

Hi Liliana,

(I have no opinion about this topic.)


Your quote is:

>> The data included in the source package represents the preferred form
>> for modifications.
>> If they were licensed under the G P L it would fail the "preferred
>> form of modification" requirement

but from the mentioned link [1], the quote includes a _but_:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
                                                                       If they
 were licensed under the G P L it would fail the "preferred form of
 modification" requirement, but its BSD-like license grants you all the
 necessary rights to modify, use and distribute them.
 .
 While there likely was, once upon a time, a custom set of tools to create this
 game data, those tools do not exist any more.  The original creators of the
 game are in the same situation as Debian's users when it comes to
 modifications.
 .
 Also, the reason for requiring the "preferred form for modification" is to not
 put the creator of the software/data in a "monopoly" situation. This isn't the
 case here.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---


> As far as I'm concerned, "preferred form of modification" should not be
> dependant upon the license in question.  Speaking of the license in
> question, it's prohibition of selling is nowhere mentioned.

My understanding of the Debian argument is:

 1. the licence is BSD-like respecting the Debian Free Software Guidelines

 2. point #3 of DFSG [2] says «The license must allow modifications and
 derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same
 terms as the license of the original software.»

 3. considering game data, all people are equals – from original author
 to users – because the tool set for modifying these game data does not
 exist anymore

Therefore, drascula is part of the ’main’ Debian archive, scummvm too.

Tobias wrote [3]:

        Either the inclusion of [a subset of] Drascula in Trisquel[0] is
        a similar oversight, or we're missing some legal subtlety.

so maybe some legal subtlety is indeed missed.  Let wait an answer by
FSF licensing department… if any. :-)
 

1: 
<https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/d/drascula/drascula_1.0+ds4-1_copyright>
2: <https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>
3: <https://yhetil.org/guix/87iln5a0u9@nckx>


Cheers,
simon