In regards to "The Qlovatech Community Trademark License 1.0", we can't accept licenses that aren't OSI or FSF approved, especially if they are copyleft.
I personally don't know your motivations to choose this license over other more commonly used licenses in the FOSS community, but if you don't have any issues, the only way for us to accept this package in the CDB is if you chose to relicense.
That's unfortunate. I would have considered releasing the game under an LAGPL-style license with restrictions around the use of the name and origin but this doesn't really exist and so I decided upon the the Qlovatech Community Trademark License which is designed to achieve this sort of goal.
I do believe that the license meets the criteria set out by the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative but it hasn't been officially approved yet. The license is designed to allow redistribution and derivatives and I personally believe that it's a great license for shareable source games.
Perhaps the ContentDB help pages could be updated to clarify that licenses submitted are required to be approved/recognised by OSI/FSF :)
I'll probably just release this on the forums instead (I hope that's ok).
Thanks for taking the time to review my submission!
The announced Jam is what encouraged me to create the game, so either way I believe it is part of the jam :)
That being said, it would be nice for it to be officially submitted/recognised so I have created a special release
v0.3.1-agpl that is licenced under the AGPLv3 + additional conditions (relating to name and origin). I hope this
will be sufficient for approval!
I understand that the ContentDB has its own policy on Technical Names however it is my belief that the rules
around naming should additionaly be included/documented into the license of the project.
I have disabled automatic Git releases and removed the VCS url for now and I will not be making any changes to the project until after
the jam period is over (1st of January) at which point, if I do decide to update the release here, will only be special AGPL manual releases until/unless otherwise agreed.
Yes, that is sufficient. I would appreciate a link to the repository in your long description, with sufficient notice of licensing differences of course :) I'll go ahead and approve the package now, thanks for participating!