On Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 19:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:25:15 -0400 Christian Ohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> >What I meant was the whole data. If we are not allowed to modify and
> >distribute that, this project is over (then there is nothing to
> >resurrect, just to conserve - and who wants the role of a curator?).
> Did this not come up before, or is this more of a issue now since more
> people have found the project, and just the Debian guys are the first
> to ask more questions about the license?

There was a general consensus that we are free to use the data as we
want (at least under the conditions of the GPL), 

> Doing some checking in the logs, to me it seems that there was a
> inadvertent GPL violation for the newer map editor that works with a
> higher color quality (32 bit versus 16bit)  Coyote's hard disk crashed
> or something, and lost the source code.  Does that matter?  I was
> reading the GPL FAQ, and it said that if binaries are available and
> released, then the source must be with it. 

Yeah, strictly speaking, that's a GPL violation as well. The problem is,
nobody is holding the source back, so it's a corner case. Nobody gains
anything from complaining about the missing source, except that the only
working map editor we have right now won't be available anymore.

> Wonder if any member of the warzone community is a lawyer?  Looks like
> we need a international lawyer to deal with this stuff. 

A lawyer will tell you what he's paid to tell you... (At least in
ambiguous cases. "If we interpret that passage this way, it'll work out
the way we want..." We can do that ourselves.)

The first half of our lives is ruined by our parents and the second half
by our children.
                -- Clarence Darrow

Warzone-dev mailing list

Reply via email to