>most of your games are unlicensed conversions of copyrighted board games. Not that I have a problem with that (like I said, I enjoyed playing "Africa" for a bit), but that fact alone would hinder more widespread distribution anyway.
There are/were commercial games such as Yahtzee, Monopoly (if memory serves) and suchlike distributed alongside Red Hat Linux...I still have the relevant CDs lying around somewhere...
>and in a single 15 second brainstorming session could come up with a hole in your concept (banner ads) - that's not exactly a seal of quality.
As I already pointed out, the next revision of the licence will make it clearer that that isn't permitted. GPL and suchlike don't seem to have any restrictions at all about adding such things. So I don't see how that is a hole in my licence but not likewise a hole in the GPL. Obviously my licence isn't perfect but the obvious solution is to improve it, not just abandon it because it's not yet perfect.
>plus the new clause that people named 'James' are not allowed to do anything with the code.
Actually, that case is explicitly handled by the licence, in the "must allow us the right to backport improvements" part. Perhaps it should be a bit clearer and/or more restrictive about what kind of licences for derivative works are acceptable though.
>You might want to look at CC-BY-SA (a free license) or CC-BY-SA-NC.
Well, I'll have a look at them, and also at the AWeb Public Licence and some others, and see if any of them fit the bill. I'd be surprised if that was the case though.
Originally Posted by saimon69
most of it are still proprietary and the documentation is not accessible without NDAs - think at p96 and reaction
ReAction documentation is part of the freely available OS3.9 NDK (and the various OS4 SDKs too). I'm fairly sure the P96 autodocs are also publicly available. And I certainly never signed any NDA.