Matevz Jekovec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Jim Wilson wrote: > >One other thing you could mention is that we would be distributing the model > >in an entirely different format (wouldn't we?). In that sense he would not be > >rewriting the license as these would be derived from the original, and not > >copies of the original. > > > I don't quite understand. AFAIK no matter which work of his do we > include in FGFS, it should be licensed under GPL. That is if we use > exactly his model file format or we change it to FGFS format. The 99% > of work is still his and therefore is still licensed under his license?<br> > </body> > </html>
Well, I'm not a lawyer, and what you are saying sounds correct, but I didn't mean that as a statement on a legal issue. As a courteous gesture, it just seems that he *may* be more comfortable if we asked to release items under GPL that were conversions and not the exact same files that are released elsewhere under a different license. It avoids misunderstandings. Converting an MDL file to AC format is the sort of thing I'm talking about, not just resizing a texture file. For example, the magazine cover is, in a sense, relicensing of a derived work (a 2D image of a 3D image), but it isn't a copy of the original. It may also be true that we (FlightGear project) should be careful about releasing things under the GPL that are identical to items released under a different license elsewhere. That's a legal question. Best, Jim _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
