There is no need to discuss this futher.

From what I have seen, there have been no complains on or from any distribution maintainer so far.

Perhaps you missed my complain and the one of ruskie.

I can see this from your point of view, but I think most of the hostility from the developers are aimed at a selected few, who simply don't understand the current license and just keep on complaining (hint: read post #13 and down).

From what I have seen, there have been no complains on or from any distribution maintainer so far.

Note that I don't belong to the dev-team and that this is just my personal view on the topic. Please don't correct me unless you have more solid knowledge than I do in this topic.

kkthxbye.

I just pointed that he is talking about distribution. However matricks will say what he meant.

And again read that line: "You are paying for the distribution and not the game itself."
I don't see sense if he talked about distributing in this line.

Hint: It reads "the distribution", not "distribution". Read again.

He was refering to the FSF Free Software Definitions. In that context the sentence has an ellipses: "Paying for distribution is okey, you are paying for the distribution (of the game) and not the game itself."

But you're totally right, matricks can point things out. Maybe he really talked about Linux distributions and just missed an 'a'...

And again read that line: "You are paying for the distribution and not the game itself."
I don't see sense if he talked about distributing in this line.

Hint: It reads "the distribution", not "distribution". Read again.

No, they refer to GNU/Linux disrtibutions.

The idea behind free software is a lot older than GNU/Linux distributions. Have you read the essay I just posted?
The FSF talks about distributing free software for a fee that can also be called selling.

Keep in mind why the FSF guys refer to "distribution" and not "selling":
The term "sell software" is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, exchanging a copy of a free program for a sum of money is "selling"; but people usually associate the term "sell" with proprietary restrictions on the subsequent use of the software. You can be more precise, and prevent confusion, by saying either "distributing copies of a program for a fee" or "imposing proprietary restrictions on the use of a program," depending on what you mean.

Ì think perfectly understood the line - maybe you should check wether you have understood it by explaining it - there's no better way to find out wether one has understood something than by explaining it to others.
Maybe I really got something wrong...

Hint: It reads "distribution", not "a distribution".

If you don't understand that line read it again and again and again till you'll understand it.

@Scott, when they say "distribution" they refer to it as a GNU/Linux distribution, like Red Hat or Debian.

No, they refer to the common form of distribution, that can also be a simple CD-R with just the software on it.

The Free Software Foundation has even an own article on selling free software that espacially matricks should read (due to his statement that I have not read the FSF definition correctly).

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere.

Okey, again you not reading the license correctly. Paying for distribution is okey, you are paying for the distribution and not the game itself.

That's just knitpicking. Demanding payment for distribution is not far from selling. Actually very very close to it. I could charge $10 for Emacs or $10 for the distribution of Emacs. Absolutely no big deal and the FSF guys know that their products can be "sold"

I do not intend to sell your game. And if I would want to sell it, I would not need to ask you because your license allows the selling of your game (packaged with another game, for example)

I just like free software. Yours isn't, but very close to it. It's sad, but that's the way things go...

Only to clarify two things:
1. There would be no fuss if you would have chosen original zlib/libpng.
2. Your addition does not prevent anyone from selling your game, it only generates negative fuss that nobody wants.
3. If Point 4 is really just for pointing out that no one should sell the game except for you, a "please don't sell our game" on the homepage would have the same effect.
4. No one will sell your game, anyways because it's available for free. If someone tries to, he will have only little or no profits and stop the endeavour in no time.