Consider a dual licensing with an OSI-approved license instead of just Blue Oak ?

[olberger]

It seems that the Blue Oak license is nice and offers a more modern replacement to MIT/BSD/X etc.

However, it seems that it's not yet endorsed by the FSF or OSI.

That's not such a big deal. But I wonder if this may be detrimental to the the distribution, if some are worried about the free/non-free status of the game.

Maybe some form of dual licensing could offer more comfort ?

That's probably not an urgent issue vs developping the game.

Thanks for your views on this.

[blinry]

Thanks for the suggestion! :) It would be a bummer if the license hindered distribution.

We intentionally chose something a bit cutting-edge, and I don't have a firm opinion yet on whether dual-licensing would offer an improvement – but just for reference, here's Kyle E. Mitchell's stance on a related topic: Don't Rely on OSI Approval – he points out, for example, that CC0 is also not OSI-approved.

[throwaway1037]

Please may you consider dual-licensing under a license approved by both the FSF and the OSI? Some GNU+Linux distributions will be prevented from packaging software unless this criteria is met, or at least if it is not definitely known to be free/libre software.