Oolite Bulletins

eddyp wrote:

me does the "this software is liberated software" dance

What does this all mean to us simple folk?

reills wrote:

What does this all mean to us simple folk?

That's what I was going to say.

reills wrote:

What does this all mean to us simple folk?

More endorsement from linux distros; probably, as a consequence, more visibility for the project and more possible developers attracted to the project.

That would translate into a better game for the user

eddyp wrote:

/me does the "this software is liberated software" dance

As long as you don't start singing like a frog as well, that's fine

reills wrote:

What does this all mean to us simple folk?

It means it's now also free for commercial purposes. This means that it can be installed as a pastime in an internet café, for example. It also means you can box it and sell it in a shop (and keep all the profits) as long as you make the source available and let your customers know that the product they're buying is free.

That last bit might seem nonsensical, but that was Suse Linux's basic business model until Novell bought them!

Brianetta wrote:

... and let your customers know that the product they're buying is free.

That last bit might seem nonsensical, but...

...no buts, that is pretty damned illogical Mister Spock!

I thought I'd try to clarify the GPL for those who may not be that familiar with it.

The idea is to have free software, "free as in air" not necessarily "free as in beer". The licence permits (encourages) you to tinker with, and modify, the software. However if you distribute the modified software you must also distribute the code and give your recipients/customers/whatever the same rights that you received with your copy of the program.

This is essentially "cooperative computing". You can't make money by selling the program - it is available for free. You can make money by charging for support or for custom modifications.

Essentially that's it. A lot of FUD has been created about the GPL, mostly by people who either feel threatened by it or who want to use the code in their closed source applications.

So anybody who wants to modify and redistribute Oolite is free to do so. Under these conditions. You can even sell it if you find a stupid enough mark. However expect to land in deep trouble if you use any of the code in a closed source application.

davcefai wrote:

You can't make money by selling the program - it is available for free.

I'd rephrase that to, "You can attempt to make money by selling the program, even though it is available for free." Put it on a CD and sell it if you want. To directly quote the GPL:

GNU wrote:

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

So, slap Oolite onto CDs and sell it at your local car boot sale at £3 each. Make a killing. If the police show up after a "piracy" tip-off, show them the license. Sell some Linux stuff (and OpenOffice.org) while you're at it. It's a free world, when you have free software. (-:

So, slap Oolite onto CDs and sell it at your local car boot sale at £3 each

I'd be surprised if people thought £3 was an acceptable price for sticking something free on a CD.

People might not want to buy it, but that’s irrelevant to the point that you’re allowed to try to sell it.

DerekHartley wrote:

So, slap Oolite onto CDs and sell it at your local car boot sale at £3 each

I'd be surprised if people thought £3 was an acceptable price for sticking something free on a CD.

Well, you don't have to make the fact that it's free obvious. A readme file on the CD should do the trick. They'll just assume that they're getting a pirated game for less than the market price.

Besides, there are plenty without internet who'd miss out otherwise, and that £3 covers you standing in a car boot sale all morning.

I've just noticed some conflicting information in the licensing announcement OP.

After stating in the opening paragraph that resources are licensed under the CC-by-nc-sa-3, all further mentions of this license refer to the CC-by-nc-sa-2. This ought to be updated..

Diziet Sma wrote:

I've just noticed some conflicting information in the licensing announcement OP.

After stating in the opening paragraph that resources are licensed under the CC-by-nc-sa-3, all further mentions of this license refer to the CC-by-nc-sa-2. This ought to be updated..

Read it again. It’s CC-by-nc-sa-2 for Oolite 1.65, and CC-by-nc-sa-3 for subsequent releases.

Guess I need new glasses..

Again. <sigh>