-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dennis Schridde wrote:
>> This seems a bit hazy to me, actually. How do you tell a difference >> between a file erroneously documented as proprietary from a proprietary >> file included among GPL'ed files? > > Where is this documentation you are refering to? It says "Copyright (c) 1997 Eidos plc. All rights reserved." right inside the file. Maybe the word "documented" is not the most suitable one, but I did not come up with a better one at the time. > The original license was not given through this COPYING file as far as I know. > Instead Pumpkin put the following (cryptic) readme into the archive. > It is not even clearly stated under what license the data is. (Sourcecode and > data are "as is" and then the sourcecode is explicitly set under the GPL. No > further word about the data.) [...] > 1) These source and data files are provided as is with no guarantees. > > 2) No assistance or support will be offered or given. Sounds like public domain. Could be shareware as well... > 5) This source code is released under the terms of the GNU Public License. As far as I understand it, they do not consider data files to be part of the source code, hence they are not really GPL. Public domain? Proprietary? My brain hurts... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFEDcKztOe9mov/y4RAuojAKCK/5zEYKXlnh3zArGcSt1SlBp4VACfQ3YK aGm46xMFnn7b1yQjHD9phRs= =mBoC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
