The fourth clause may fall afoul of First Sale Doctrine. It's something that I wouldn't trust without talking to an IP lawyer to work out what it actually means

The fourth clause may fall afoul of First Sale Doctrine. It's something that I wouldn't trust without talking to an IP lawyer to work out what it actually means and how much is actually viable to be done in an open source license. I don't think the first sale doctrine comes in to play here at all. If we make it physical media for arguments sake. First sale doctrine would say that if a user bought a cartridge of the game they could resell that cartridge. That is not the same thing as redistribution which would be the equivalent of copying the game to new cartridges and selling those. Also, this is definitely not an Open Source license. However, it is similar to the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license. The fifth clause is nullified by the terms of GitHub, I think, as GitHub's ToS seems to require you to allow anyone to fork your repository without encumbrance, which the fifth clause tries to narrow. I'm pretty sure the terms of a website can't overrule the license of the software. I think at best it could get the project kicked off of github, and make it hard to prosecute someone who didn't realize. His biggest problem is use of the word fork when he really meant derivative work. Which comes down to my point that the goal of the license is legal, but maybe not the wording.