Mike Markley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > If I'm reading this snippet correctly, all it's saying is that the images > and other data can't be distributed w/o the GPL'd source code. I'm not > entirely sure on whether or not this fits w/the DFSG... > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 10:17:23PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote: > > ... > > No, it's not free: > > > > The source code to Maelstrom 3.0 and higher has been released under > > the GNU General Public License which can be found in COPYING.GPL. > > > > The artwork and sounds used by Maelstrom are copyright Ambrosia Software > > (http://www.ambrosiasw.com) and may not be redistributed separately from > > the Maelstrom public GPL release.
I find that a very curious and not workable description. Firstly, it doesn't actually give any licence at all to redistribute the artwork and sounds, which are copyrighted. Maybe if the part "and may not be redistributed separately from" were replaced by "but they may be freely redistributed under the condition that this is in conjunction with", it would make a bit more sense. Even then there is a contradiction. The licence for the artwork and sounds, even if not exactly specified, is clearly not GPL. The GPL explicitly states that GPL-ed code may not be incorporated into a work unless the whole is distributed under the conditions of the GPL. Therefore to distribute the two together requires a balancing act to tie them close enough together to consider them "not separate" for the artwork and sounds licence, but loose enough that they do not form a work for the purposes of GPL. I would suggest that the artwork and sounds cannot be distributed at all as the text currently reads, and Ambrosia Software should be asked to add a licence with clear conditions, and advised that these conditions should not contradict those of the GPL. Personally I can see no sensible reason why one would want to require inclusion of the Maelstrom GPL release with distribution of the artwork and sounds, since users are free to trash the former after reception anyway. Let Ambrosia specify whatever licence they want, and based on that one can decide do distribute artwork and sounds in main, non-free, or not at all, but this kind of making one part dependent in complicated ways on other parts is creating logical puzzles that help nobody. Marc van Leeuwen Universite de Poitiers http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
