Am Dienstag, 19. September 2006 20:51 schrieb Christian Ohm: > 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... I read a the thread on the Debian legal mailinglist. Seems like even a lawyers head hurts when reading that file...
pgpOdYk6ICEUn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
