Am Donnerstag, 21. September 2006 01:04 schrieb Christian Ohm: > On Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 18:36, Christian Vest Hansen wrote: > > Forgot to mention that I think this: > > >The readme says: "provided as is with no guarantees." > > >Can't we use that as a license? > > > > sounds like the obvious thing to do, provided it is GPL compatible. > > Why GPL compatible? The data could have another license (but for > practical reasons, see below). > > > And since it impose no restrictions that the GPL does not impose, > > chances are that it is GPL compatible (though I'm not the one to > > guarentee this!!!) > > That was my interpretation as well. The next step I'd take is to > actually use the GPL for the data (as there are no restrictions imposed > we can just relicense it to GPL), with a little clarification of how to > apply it to the data (since the GPL is mainly written with source code > in mind). > > Why the GPL for the data? Because there is a hazy line between source > and data in Warzone. Are the scripts the engine uses data or source > code? Another point that wasn't clarified in the README. And for general > consistency, else we need to decide on what license the data should > have, if we accept contributions with other licenses... too much hassle > in my eyes. > > Clarification on using the GPL for data: Data is (generally speaking) > just a binary blob without a defined "source code". So, if we get, for > example, a PNG file, that file can be modified and distributed with no > further restrictions, and, unless we also get the layered Gimp file (or > whatever was used to make the PNG), the file has no source. > > Of course we should encourage people to also share their source > material, but that's no requirement in my eyes. (For example, there are > image libraries where you are allowed to use the images in you own work > (composites) which can be freely resistributed, but you are not allowed > to distribute the images themselves.) > > Thinking about it, that sounds suspiciously like the "I want to use a > closed source library" question, and it is getting close to the limits > of the GPL, but as you can edit a PNG file without any problems > (contrary to a compiled program), I think it's still acceptable (we just > define the PNG file to be its own source - contrary to a JPG, that needs > a version without lossy compression as source).
I don't know how good the GPL is for data... And if we want to change it to be suitable for data, then we need a lawyer to write us the license additions / changes... (so they are waterproof) *sigh* --Dennis
pgprA3hgQtmEo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
