On Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 21:29, Linas Žvirblis wrote: > > 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...
Public Domain was my interpretation as well, but that wasn't very popular. Shareware doesn't make sense to me. > > 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? Proprietary could be, but doesn't really make sense, as it also says (paraphrased) "The complete game (except music and videos) is in here" and doesn't make any restrictions on distribution. If the data is Public Domain, then we can relicense it to GPL. If it is GPL, it already is GPL. So, one way or the other, we can distribute the data under the GPL. And as the game was intended as a "present" (perhaps not the right word, but I can't think of a better one right now), nobody is likely to complain about it anyway. > My brain hurts... Yeah, licensing stuff and gnarly old C can do that to you... _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
