D1x license

[Michael Wiktowy]

Matthew Miller wrote:

>On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 04:31:51PM -0400, Michael Wiktowy wrote:
>  
>
>>While I totally agree with you that allowing non-commercial restrictions 
>>on packages in Extras adds complexity to the repackaging of Extras for 
>>commercial purposes. I don't think that the aversion to that complexity 
>>justifies the complete exclusion of those packages from Extras.
>>    
>>
>
>What are "commercial purposes"? Can the package be used as part of my job
>that makes money? What if I work for a non-profit? What if I don't? What if
>I do consulting using my Fedora Extras box, and a utility I use is linked
>against library with this restriction? What if I'm working on some
>grant-funded project that uses this software, and the results of that work
>gets spun off into a startup company?
>
>Both the GPL and the BSD licenses avoid all of this, for good reason.
>
>  
>
Poor choice of words on my part. The specific "purpose" was 
"distribution" for the context of my discussion. I certainly wouldn't 
extend my defense to any other non-commercial restrictions on use or 
products of use.

Looking back that the license quoted in the original email, it looks 
like the binary data file is less encumbered than the source code of the 
engine wrt to your point about usage restrictions.

I am curious now if some closed-source games have such usage 
restrictions on them (I don't think that I have ever made it through 
completely reading one of those EULAs). It would probably make gaming 
competitions using those games illegal.

/Mike